Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: chaser on December 14, 2011, 09:08:02 PM
-
Now I'm confused. I thought it was what you saw on your end is what happened to you and that why only 1 person collide.
Tonight I dove on an IL2, set him on fire and pulled up about 100 yds off of him and went over the top inverted, looking down at him. Then I get collision message and insta towered while he doesn't get a collision message. He said I went through his plane on his end but I know for fact I missed on my end. So which way is it?
-
You lagged.
-
You lagged.
...and you got shot.
wrongway
-
...and then you insta towered.
-
...And now I laugh.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
-
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/thatsallfolks.jpg)
-
what a great thread... :aok
-
The collision model is a pile of crap. Many times has what happens on my front end, had no bearing on the collision messege.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B8BuQHMyPc <- focus's on one particular collision supposedly now fixed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLuXoHeZtzc <- Contains a number of none-collision collisions
-
The collision model is a pile of crap. Many times has what happens on my front end, had no bearing on the collision messege.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B8BuQHMyPc <- focus's on one particular collision supposedly now fixed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLuXoHeZtzc <- Contains a number of none-collision collisions
The first one was not an issue of the 'collision model' itself, just a bug of a ghost wing staying after the true one was destroyed. That's purely object related.
For the second movie... 'Somewhere in that 7 minute edited footage with no messages shown at all are bogus collisions'. Yeah....
If you want to support your point, you may better post the original ahf, showing part which is actually relevant ;)
-
The first one was not an issue of the 'collision model' itself, just a bug of a ghost wing staying after the true one was destroyed. That's purely object related.
For the second movie... 'Somewhere in that 7 minute edited footage with no messages shown at all are bogus collisions'. Yeah....
If you want to support your point, you may better post the original ahf, showing part which is actually relevant ;)
1st film - HiTech said it had nothing to do with a ghost wing, I sent that .ahf to HiTech as he had requested me to when I posted it the first time. Hitech's reason for it is in the other thread.
2nd film - I do not accept any none-collision collision to be called bogus;
My G14 losing it's wing to a vulcher, in which on my FE we didn't touch and even in the vid shows this.. My F4U, the very next shot, being collided with from the rear insta-towering me, which isn't the first time i might add..
The only thing relevent is your eyes having a good look.
-
Now I'm confused. I thought it was what you saw on your end is what happened to you and that why only 1 person collide.
Tonight I dove on an IL2, set him on fire and pulled up about 100 yds off of him and went over the top inverted, looking down at him. Then I get collision message and insta towered while he doesn't get a collision message. He said I went through his plane on his end but I know for fact I missed on my end. So which way is it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc69zr_5uH4
-
:D this flying gig ain't going well huh? :joystick:
-
I can see his point of view but then again I cannot :old:
When I get shot down I usually up another plane, is there a limit on how many times I can up planes?
If so I am very unhappy about limiting of plane uppage :old:
pies
-
Now I'm confused. I thought it was what you saw on your end is what happened to you and that why only 1 person collide.
Tonight I dove on an IL2, set him on fire and pulled up about 100 yds off of him and went over the top inverted, looking down at him. Then I get collision message and insta towered while he doesn't get a collision message. He said I went through his plane on his end but I know for fact I missed on my end. So which way is it?
What message did you see exactly. You say collision message ... but which one?
From your description it sounds like you got a So and So collide with you, and then you were killed with bullets.
HiTech
-
I've think I'm into almost three years now and I must say, the modeling is awesome. Why would you complain about something there is nothing better than.
Maybe just make suggestions, why talk crap...?
With how often this game and our systems updates I'm surprised at how well they keep in running.
-
My only gripe about the collision model is when some yahoo comes in to pick and you end up colliding with an aircraft you never saw (your client saw, but not you I should say).
Still, it is a much better system than no collision (which would encourage more HOs), or one where two planes collide regardless of what your FE sees. Until we all play in the same room, it is the best of all available evils.
-
AH has models??? What do they look like? Do they have a calendar? :rock
-
What message did you see exactly. You say collision message ... but which one?
From your description it sounds like you got a So and So collide with you, and then you were killed with bullets.
HiTech
I got the "you have collided" message. I suppose it could have been lag though like was suggested earlier. I wish I had film to show you what I saw but I didn't have it going.
-
I understand the collision model and why it is there. But I think both planes should take critical damage.
Getting a "so and so has collided with you" with guns blazing and gets a piece of you while he flies away with a missing aeleron is dumb.
When you throw on the breaks and are trying to avoid someone on your 6 to the point you are going 100mph or less and have them fly by at a higher rate of speed into your nose, sometimes I get the collision even though I was trying to avoid. I get damage they fly away unharmed. Dumb
I understand it opens up the "kamikaze", but I would argue that in most instances the "kamikaze" is already coming in guns blazing taking out their oppenent by ramming their guns up the backside. As it is now they will fly away with an oil leak and their kill, but they should be in a pile on the ground just like you.
-
I understand the collision model and why it is there. But I think both planes should take critical damage.
If you think that I doubt you really understand the collision model.
-
If you think that I doubt you really understand the collision model.
I understand ping and its relation with the server and the computers. I understand some of the collisions I take are not collisions on the other guys screen and I still feel that both planes should take the damage and not fly away from it.
Any other comment you would like to make?
-
I understand ping and its relation with the server and the computers. I understand some of the collisions I take are not collisions on the other guys screen and I still feel that both planes should take the damage and not fly away from it.
Any other comment you would like to make?
Change "some" to "almost all" and then think about the consequences of your suggestion.
It takes 10ish minutes for an attacker to fly to a base, it takes a defender maybe a minute to reach him. The defender then rams the attacker, something the attacker cannot dodge as he can't see what he is dodging, and <boom> both go down. Defender ups and is back in position in a tenth the time the attacker is.
Both take damage is completely non-viable.
-
I understand ping and its relation with the server and the computers. I understand some of the collisions I take are not collisions on the other guys screen and I still feel that both planes should take the damage and not fly away from it.
Any other comment you would like to make?
So your saying you would be ok with a plane flying near your plane, not coming too close, but due to lag your plane takes damage, even tho you only flew near him right, because on his computer it looked like he flew right through your plane? :rolleyes:
-
Karnak if they are trying to ram you, like in your example, more than likely they will kill you with guns like it is now and fly away with a damaged gun, oil damage ...ect. after a collision. I don't like that, that is what I want changed. I want them to take severe damage.
Fugi yes because if they changed the damage to be more severe for the collider, people will slam on the brakes and try to be the collidee to cause their opponent to go down.
Maybe you guys like it now that if you do collide you get to fly away with a missing elevator, I don't think you should fly away at all. :rolleyes:
So to me it would only work if both went down
I would guess I spend 1/2 my time avoiding HO's that would end in a collision if i HOed back as it stands now. I would hope people would think twice about the chance of collision if the consequences were more severe.
-
i say if anyone collides... both parties get the collision regardless... planes aren't supposed to touch any way... and if they do.. for example to take an enemy plane down via collision is a viable tactic... and not because someone's internet connection is better than others and therefore he doesn't get the collision... total bull i reckon...
-
i say if anyone collides... both parties get the collision regardless... planes aren't supposed to touch any way... and if they do.. for example to take an enemy plane down via collision is a viable tactic... and not because someone's internet connection is better than others and therefore he doesn't get the collision... total bull i reckon...
Internet connection has absolutely no role in the collision model. It doesn't matter at all what your respective connections are. If your FE detects a collision, you take damage. If his detects a collision he takes damage. If both detect a collision, both take damage. It is easy as pie to understand.
-
Internet connection has absolutely no role in the collision model. It doesn't matter at all what your respective connections are. If your FE detects a collision, you take damage. If his detects a collision he takes damage. If both detect a collision, both take damage. It is easy as pie to understand.
neg if i both detect collision, i always die, the other flies away with no damage :cry.
semp
-
Internet connection has absolutely no role in the collision model. It doesn't matter at all what your respective connections are. If your FE detects a collision, you take damage. If his detects a collision he takes damage. If both detect a collision, both take damage. It is easy as pie to understand.
YEA RITE!!! if it was that easy.. i wouldn't be complaining....then why am i the only 1 detecting a collision sitting on the runway and not even moving?? how is it my fault for sitting on the runway and colliding into someone when i'm not even moving??
-
YEA RITE!!! if it was that easy.. i wouldn't be complaining....then why am i the only 1 detecting a collision sitting on the runway and not even moving?? how is it my fault for sitting on the runway and colliding into someone when i'm not even moving??
Who said it was your fault?
You are the only one to detect a collision if the collision happens only on your FE. And it'S the other way around too. If there's no collision on your screen, but on your enemy's... he will take damage, not you.
The program never judges anything, it doesn't care about who's fault it was, who did fly into whom and what not. It's a simple collision detection on each player's computer. And contrary to myth, it is not the server who decides anything, he just gets the results and does his usual job, i.e. assigning (proxy) kills if applicable.
The irony is: Player come here to complain, because they had a collision on their screen and the enemy had none on his and files away. Nobody thinks about what the "both go down, no matter what" concept would mean to them.
-
see thats what i meant... he collides into me and i get the damage and he gets none... shouldn't both get it? i think they need to rework the model so both parties get the damage...
and i think the way the FE(whatever that means) detects, is the way the lag is on both parties...
-
see thats what i meant... he collides into me and i get the damage and he gets none... shouldn't both get it? i think they need to rework the model so both parties get the damage...
Again: Do you want to take damage from a collision that never happened on your screen at all? That's what you asking for. You will see enemy come at you, you evade him successfully, you see him passing at 100ft... and "boom" "you have collided".
and i think the way the FE(whatever that means) detects, is the way the lag is on both parties...
FE = front end, another way to say "your computer" ;)
But you are right in a way - It depends on both player's connection how much their planes are "lagging" on each others FE, but that goes both ways. (the server is just relaying the data)
-
well if thats case... i can take the fact that lag caused it and not complain further...and but what will get me pissed is the fact that he takes none and i get the damage...
-
well if thats case... i can take the fact that lag caused it and not complain further...and but what will get me pissed is the fact that he takes none and i get the damage...
Of course it sucks, because it looks unfair, particularly your 'sitting on the runway' example. But unfortunately that's the best possible solution, for each other method ("both take damage", "no collisions") would create even more problems. Way more. :uhoh
-
Of course it sucks, because it looks unfair, particularly your 'sitting on the runway' example. But unfortunately that's the best possible solution, for each other method ("both take damage", "no collisions") would create even more problems. Way more. :uhoh
pls explain in what way would it create more problems? a collision is a collision.... both planes take damage...
-
pls explain in what way would it create more problems? a collision is a collision.... both planes take damage...
You seem to still mix it up.
A collision is not a collision. Due to the (unavoidable) lag, there is a different reality on each players screen. All the time. For everyone.
And that'S why it can happen, that you and me have a collision on MY screen, but there is none on YOUR screen. Do you want to take damage in this case? You evade my ram and still you get 'collision'? Do you really want it?
Look at this picture.
(http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/8728/ramotherfexg7.jpg)
This is from the Thunderbolt pilot's view. See the "Lusche has collided with you" message at the bottom, and note that I never even touched his plane on his screen.
Now think you are the Thunderbolt pilot: You really want to take damage? You would not have any problems with going down by this?
Oh and by the way... that's how it looked like to me (Mustang)... exactly the same moment as on the screenshot above:
(http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/1364/rammyfegg1.jpg)
-
for some reason i think i would like that... now lets change the scenario... put yourself on the runway.... you get banged... would you not want the other party to get at damage? so thats why i said i would prefer that both parties get damage... if i constantly have lag issues...i am always going to have this unfair collision msgs... are you telling me i should live with me always getting the collision msg? while the other flies away? collision damage to both parties is very viable no matter how and which direction you look at it. and plus.... having the both party collision... you might have another option to bring down an enemy plane when your guns run dry.. is that not a good thing? i have many a times run out of bullets and still behind the six of someone less than 100 out... i could ram him before he kills my buddy...thats viable too... basically .. what i want to see is the damage to both parties irregardless of lag, or fairness.... thats a collision!
-
for some reason i think i would like that...
I guarantee: You would not. You would clearly evade a ram attempt - and still get the collision. How would you even try to explain that to someone? "But there was no collision!"
Yes. A collision is when there is a collision. We do agree at that point. But that does also mean, when there is no collision, there is no collision. And that's how it works now :)
And just think how incredibly easy a ram would be: Each time I run into you (on my FE!), you go down... but you can't even evade it, because you wil almost never see it! Think about what this would mean for the gameplay.
Don't get stuck in the limited 'victim view'. Do not take an isolated, single incident and try to change the 'rules' without looking at the whole thing, all options, all situations, all possible effects.
Lusche out.
-
i did dude... and thats why i say collision model to change to both parties..
-
i did dude... and thats why i say collision model to change to both parties..
Then you don't understand it or the consequences of any of the other options.
First, you error in thinking in terms of "fault", like "He rear ended me!" or "He ran that stoplight!". Don't. That has no place. He flew by you on his screen and never hit you. On yours, due to the difference in position, he hit you. Only you could have seen that coming collision to avoid it. There is nothing he could have done to avoid it. You would have him die for something he couldn't have avoided.
It is a completely non-viable setting.
-
i still standby my current opinion... if what you stated isn't fair to the other guy, wat about the guy who sits on runway and only he gets the collision? so thats why i say both parties get the damage...
-
i still standby my current opinion... if what you stated isn't fair to the other guy, wat about the guy who sits on runway and only he gets the collision? so thats why i say both parties get the damage...
That happens a lot, huh? I'm sure it wasn't the guns he was shooting at you that did the damage. ;)
The collision model is fair and was explained to you very clearly, you just don't want to understand it.
-
That happens a lot, huh? I'm sure it wasn't the guns he was shooting at you that did the damage. ;)
The collision model is fair and was explained to you very clearly, you just don't want to understand it.
you telling me i can't tell if its from bullets or collisions?
dun worry it will happen to you one day...
-
FE means "front end" and it refers to the player's computer. The collision model works like this. You get damaged if you have a collision on your computer regardless of who caused it. If you don't have a collision you don't get damaged. This is simple and fair. Some people don't understand this and they want players who didn't have a collision on their computer to get damaged by somebody else's collision on somebody else's computer. That would suck.
-
i still standby my current opinion... if what you stated isn't fair to the other guy, wat about the guy who sits on runway and only he gets the collision? so thats why i say both parties get the damage...
Only the guy on the runway could have avoided it. It is 100% his fault.
-
you telling me i can't tell if its from bullets or collisions?
dun worry it will happen to you one day...
Why not acquire the film from the player who purportedly rammed you and post that along with yours. That would clear things up.
Just how many times has this scenario happened to make you want to change a perfectly fair system? Maybe a a few times in five plus years, I have been rammed while unable to avoid it and watched them fly off. There was no collision on their FE, so how could they take damage? 99.99% of the time, collisions are your own fault. There is no better way for it to work.
-
Only the guy on the runway could have avoided it. It is 100% his fault.
sure... the min you get on runway.. you get the collision msg... sure its all his fault... for getting on runway... if you sit at home and a plane crashes into your house... and you die... its your fault 100% for not avoiding the a/c
-
sure... the min you get on runway.. you get the collision msg... sure its all his fault... for getting on runway... if you sit at home and a plane crashes into your house... and you die... its your fault 100% for not avoiding the a/c
Indeed. What, you think the guy who didn't have a collision could have done anything about it? That is absurd.
It is also such a minor issue that you are making into something massive that I bet hasn't happened to you more than once. Stop bawling and grab another fighter. You lost a few seconds. Boohoo.
-
sure... the min you get on runway.. you get the collision msg... sure its all his fault... for getting on runway... if you sit at home and a plane crashes into your house... and you die... its your fault 100% for not avoiding the a/c
Thats real life, and no lag is involved, there are only 2 planes involved.
In the game there are 4 planes involved. On your computer is your plane sitting on the runway and the other plane diving through yours trying to vulch you. The other two planes are on the other guys computer, one is a representation of your plane sitting on the runway, and the second is his as he is diving down to shoot you while he is flyin at 50 above the runway. To him only his bullets hit you as he flew OVER you. On your computer he flew into you (havn't you ever seen other players take off or land 50 off the side of the CVs, or bounce under the ground as they vulched?). HE DID NOT try to avoid because he had nothing to avoid(he was 50 feet above you) There is no reason he should take damage, as he NEVER RAN INTO YOU.
-
sure... the min you get on runway.. you get the collision msg... sure its all his fault... for getting on runway... if you sit at home and a plane crashes into your house... and you die... its your fault 100% for not avoiding the a/c
The definitive "Collision" picture.
Look at this:
(http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/8585/collision.gif)
Same film form the perspective of the Jug (clear, crisp planes) and the 51 (faded planes).
You are the Jug. The P-51 is clearly 100 yards behind you. Should you take damage?
As has been stated many times already, you are not "getting" how collisions work if you are talking about "fault". Collisions are "no-fault". Either they happen on your front end, his front end, or both.
In the picture above, the Jug's front end, what his computer "sees", is the P-51 100 yards back.
On the 51's front end, what his computer "sees" is his plane running into the back of the Jug.
The way you would have it, the Jug, which is nowhere near the 51 would take damage even though there was no collision as far as he sees it.
Another example.
Ever see someone apparently fly into the ground, under the ground, pop out, and keep going? The way it was on his computer, he didn't fly into the ground.
wrongway
-
Why hasn't anyone posted Tec's flowchart?
I'm too lazy to find it...
-
I'm too lazy to find it...
I'm not. :banana:
(http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/3316/collision1.png)
-
:rofl
Priceless!!
That should prolly be a stick considering how often this question gets asked :D
-
:rofl
Priceless!!
That should prolly be a stick considering how often this question gets asked :D
If the collision model actually did as it's supposed to 100% of the time I might agree, however... it does not
-
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/CharlieBrown2-8x6.jpg)
Good grief.
-
If the collision model actually did as it's supposed to 100% of the time I might agree, however... it does not
Prove it doesn't. I know everytime I've seen a collision on my screen I've been damaged, and have laughed my butt off when I see the other guy has collided with me as I fly off because I KNOW he's crying LOL!
-
If the collision model actually did as it's supposed to 100% of the time I might agree, however... it does not
Have you carefully studied the above flowchart?
-
Prove it doesn't. I know everytime I've seen a collision on my screen I've been damaged, and have laughed my butt off when I see the other guy has collided with me as I fly off because I KNOW he's crying LOL!
Please refer to an earlier post of mine. The youtube vids will help to show it doesn't work 100%.
-
Can you provide a link to those videos?
-
Can you provide a link to those videos?
1st page of this thread
-
Can you provide a link to those videos?
...and they are youtube videos. Proves nothing. Post the real films. HTC can look at the data thats on the films that we can't see. The F4 shot you through the head as he crashed into you. I'm sure thats why you were instantly towered.
As I said, in 10 years I haven't seen anything that I didn't think should have happened. Of course I'm not micro analyzing each and every frame of film, nor do I expect each and every frame to be perfect. What you see as only "close" may be seen by the computer as "close enough". Do the skins actually cover each and every part of the 3d model? I don't know, but neither do I expect it too. Some sacrifices must be made in coding, this isn't real life and you shouldn't expect it to work like it.
-
...and they are youtube videos. Proves nothing. Post the real films. HTC can look at the data thats on the films that we can't see. The F4 shot you through the head as he crashed into you. I'm sure thats why you were instantly towered.
As I said, in 10 years I haven't seen anything that I didn't think should have happened. Of course I'm not micro analyzing each and every frame of film, nor do I expect each and every frame to be perfect. What you see as only "close" may be seen by the computer as "close enough". Do the skins actually cover each and every part of the 3d model? I don't know, but neither do I expect it too. Some sacrifices must be made in coding, this isn't real life and you shouldn't expect it to work like it.
1st film - HiTech said it had nothing to do with a ghost wing, I sent that .ahf to HiTech as he had requested me to when I posted it the first time. Hitech's reason for it is in the other thread.
2nd film - I do not accept any none-collision collision to be called bogus;
My G14 losing it's wing to a vulcher, in which on my FE we didn't touch and even in the vid shows this.. My F4U, the very next shot, being collided with from the rear insta-towering me, which isn't the first time i might add..
-
Neither of those video's are really all that useful.
In the first video it looks like you did infact clip the B17 with your left wing, but we cant see all the angles, and you really cant look at it frame by frame in youtube.
The second video is mostly you just crashing to music? If there collisions in there I didn't notice any. It looks like you just posted a random vid.
-
Neither of those video's are really all that useful.
In the first video it looks like you did infact clip the B17 with your left wing, but we cant see all the angles, and you really cant look at it frame by frame in youtube.
The second video is mostly you just crashing to music? If there collisions in there I didn't notice any. It looks like you just posted a random vid.
I'm not repeating myself anymore. The current system isn't 100%, I have posted on in in the past and what I believed would be a better way.
And MK84, that 1st video quite clearly shows no collision, you might want to borrow my glasses 8)
-
I'm not repeating myself anymore. The current system isn't 100%, I have posted on in in the past and what I believed would be a better way.
And MK84, that 1st video quite clearly shows no collision, you might want to borrow my glasses 8)
Didnt look clear to me, but then what about Luches hypothesis?
-
Didnt look clear to me, but then what about Luches hypothesis?
:bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead etc.
-
:bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead etc.
:lol
-
I'm not repeating myself anymore. The current system isn't 100%, I have posted on in in the past and what I believed would be a better way.
And MK84, that 1st video quite clearly shows no collision, you might want to borrow my glasses 8)
You seem to not want to state the fact that the issue in the film you sent me was fixed in the last version.
So is the system now 100% accurate? There is no way I can prove it is,but I have not seen any evidence there is another problem with it, so do have any films showing it is not in the current version?
HiTech
-
i say if anyone collides... both parties get the collision regardless... planes aren't supposed to touch any way...
And I'll laugh my bellybutton off when you whine that you received damage from the collision when you didn't collide on your front end.
This thread if full of people that don't understand how the collision model works, let alone the reasons for having it the way it is.
ack-ack
-
Collisions here we go again been there done that and gotten alot of t-shirts from it :)
Now that im older and wiser :old:
I now realise that WHO GIVES A DAM
Now if we where to be hooked up by electrodes so we could feel pain from bullet hits and collisions then i would complain. :)
But for now understand its a game with around 25 to 500 players at anyone time playing on various servers. Now we all dond live or camp outside Hitechs Office to play the game Do we. we all live around the world. Now think on it how many cable joins and phone relay junction boxes does a little electricity pulse say around 10volts for example have to travel from The servers at Hitechcreations to say me here in Fife in Scotland. Quit a lot i think, Now those cable joins and Phone relay Boxes provide resistance thus the 10volts pulse is now say 2volts by the time it reaches my computer. Now to avoide this the signal is boosted from 10volts to say 22volts so when it reaches my computer i recieve 10volts. Now even with a boosted signal i can still recieve around 7volts still a drop in power but not to bad a drop. So now from what i under stand is this same principle of thought i have used as i know more about flow of electricity current than i do what ever its called that flows around the world to give us the internet. From a drop of 10volts to 7 volts and back to 10volts is very similar to frame rates we recieve on online gaming so the drop of frame rates leads to say stuttering.Now it may not be you it may be the other player who knows.
Now im very happy in my old age :old: to keep playing and forget about collisions as i believe that Hitech and the team do a fine job of bringing us a wonderful game that is closest to reality ive seen in a while. So they had a problem to get around in the game design of what happens when 2 players collide what do we do is it becouse one player gets 5 frames a second less than the other ???? WHAT DO WE DO ? They say.
I bet in the design of the game they had a lengthy meeting to discuss this and come up with a fair solutution to it. Hey it may not be fair to all but hey instead of complaining try and design an online game like Aces and see what problems you encounter by having moaning customers. :)
Oh and if my way of describing whats it called you know what is streaming to our PC's to give us internet wrong i do apollogise im used to the flow of current ( Electricity ). :)
BulletVI
-
You seem to not want to state the fact that the issue in the film you sent me was fixed in the last version.
So is the system now 100% accurate? There is no way I can prove it is,but I have not seen any evidence there is another problem with it, so do have any films showing it is not in the current version?
HiTech
I haven't avoided stating any facts HiTech, I did type out that your reasons for the collision in the first film, is in the other thread made about collisions. Had I been avoiding that, I wouldn't have bothered stating it when I was pressed by Snailman. However, I haven't read it in the version/patch notes. Must be my eyes playing up this time I may have over looked it. Have you a link to the patch note containing that collision fix? Also what was the current version release date? When I'm next making a AH film for my youtube account I'll make an effort, (when catagorising the files of films,) to sort any none-collision collisions and Email then to you, as I did with that 110+B17 Film.
Bullet, Don't misunderstand me, I'm not getting at the game, or creators. As a whole, it's fantastic. If it wasn't, I wouldn't be paying around £120 a year for it while I'm in possession of IL2 Sturmovik and Wings of Prey. I understand it, but I have never liked the collision system, it's often been a knife fight fun stomper for me. As for moaning customers, I had 5 years listening to it face to face. It didn't bothered me, I was paid for it and it never caused me any problems I couldn't fix.
:salute
-
I wish I could write massive re
-
I wish I could write massive re
Bollocks!
Give me some pie :D
-
i did dude... and thats why i say collision model to change to both parties..
It is already that way.... if both players see a collision.
The long and short of it is if 99% of the players would rather have the current collision model than the one you suggest. I for one would be furious if I missed the plane by a mile and died to a collision that didn't happen as far as I'm concerned.
I honestly can't recall taking damage from a collision that didn't happen on my screen. As a matter of fact, I suspect I have only taken damage in a collision a hand full of times in the last 3 years. I do this by AVOIDING contact with NME aircraft :O I know this concept isn't something you comprehend easily, but it does work....
On a side note, you should work on your SA if you are dieing to collisions as often as you say you are.
:salute
-
I haven't avoided stating any facts HiTech, I did type out that your reasons for the collision in the first film, is in the other thread made about collisions. Had I been avoiding that, I wouldn't have bothered stating it when I was pressed by Snailman.
If you typed out my reasons ,then re read the same post, it states I had fixed it for the next release, and there was a release after that post.
HiTech
Version 2.26 Patch 0 Changes
======================
Please note that there is an updated hi-res texture pack that you will need to download if you are running 1024 or greater texture size.
Added the P-40F and P-40N. Thanks to cactuscooler for the skins.
Added the Panzer IV F and updated the Panzer IV H. Thanks to Greebo for these skins.
Added the M-18 Hellcat.
Completely revised P-40 flight modeling from the ground up. Changed the P-40B designation to a P-40C.
Changed the muzzle flash on tank guns to emit smoke.
Fixed a low level collision test that could return incorrect results in certain situations.
Fixed a bug that could cause icon or text colors to not display correctly on systems with low end video chips.
Fixed a bug that caused arena tables with longer names to not appear on the upload table list.
Fixed a crash bug that happened when spawning a custom arena with custom settings.
Fixed an issue with the Tiger 2 that allowed it to be easily damaged from the inside.
Changed it so that if the barrel of a weapon is sticking into an object, it will no longer fire.
Many missing in-plane sounds (stall horn, wind, airframe stress, etc) now play in the film viewer. Note that they will only be present in new films.
Ground vehicles films now record gunsight and turret information along with other general improvements in this area.
Film viewer now saves the window size between sessions.
Fixed some potential plane performance issues that could occur above the normal service ceiling.
Updated canopy frames on the P-51s and Spitfires to 3D shapes.
Fixed a gear shadow issue on the B5N.
Calibrated the TBM's 10K mark on the altimeter.
Added the following new CM commands that are used for change cloud patterns:
.ulweath FILENAME - uploads a cloud file (.AWA) from your \aces high\chconfig\(terrain name) folder. Note that this function is only available to CMs at this time and not custom hosts. We're still working on other improvements in this area.
.dweath - Displays all available cloud patterns for the current terrain.
.sweath FILENAME - Sets the arena to use the specified cloud file.
-
If you typed out my reasons ,then re read the same post, it states I had fixed it for the next release, and there was a release after that post.
HiTech
That's odd, 2.26 isn't in the news and info section. Only 2.26 Patch 2 is. I can't read what I can't see
-
That's odd, 2.26 isn't in the news and info section. Only 2.26 Patch 2 is. I can't read what I can't see
The patch 0 information is listed along with patch 2. If you read it I'm sure you'll see it.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/Flight-Sim/Flight-Simulator-Download/version-226-patch-0-information-page.html
-
The patch 0 information is listed along with patch 2. If you read it I'm sure you'll see it.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/Flight-Sim/Flight-Simulator-Download/version-226-patch-0-information-page.html
:rock
I found it :x
-
That's odd, 2.26 isn't in the news and info section. Only 2.26 Patch 2 is. I can't read what I can't see
Listed on the front page at the time of release.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/Flight-Sim/Flight-Simulator-Download/version-226-patch-0-information-page.html
Also the changes are included in a changes.txt file with every release.
.
My previous post to you.
That video looks like a general collision bug (not just plane to plane but any type of line/polygon intersections) I fixed (but has not been released) about 1 month back.
It has to do with one of math region cases when computing intersection a line segment and a triangle.
It most notably was discovered by driving a 262 out of a hangar and it would blow up.
There should never be a case where you sufferer a collision and your plane does not hit the other plane.
And parts coming of a plane do not cause damage.
What part of the bold did you not read or understand?
You are correct you can not read what you can not see when you keep your eyes closed
HiTech
-
The collision model works great. All of you guys crying that both planes should take damage when a collision only happened on one guy's FE are idiots. You'd whine a lot harder if both planes did take damage, even though on your end you never got within 300 yards of the other plane. THAT would cause an earth shattering squeal from you all...
Kinda makes me wish HT would do it just for one day to prove it... and to hear you whine.
:t
-
See rule 4
:rofl :rofl
-
That's odd, 2.26 isn't in the news and info section. Only 2.26 Patch 2 is. I can't read what I can't see
You have been pwned.
-
The collision model works great. All of you guys crying that both planes should take damage when a collision only happened on one guy's FE are idiots. You'd whine a lot harder if both planes did take damage, even though on your end you never got within 300 yards of the other plane. THAT would cause an earth shattering squeal from you all...
Kinda makes me wish HT would do it just for one day to prove it... and to hear you whine.
:t
Joeblack would cause collisions to players that hadn't even logged in yet if that was the system. :uhoh
-
Listed on the front page at the time of release.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/Flight-Sim/Flight-Simulator-Download/version-226-patch-0-information-page.html
Also the changes are included in a changes.txt file with every release.
.
My previous post to you.
What part of the bold did you not read or understand?
You are correct you can not read what you can not see when you keep your eyes closed
HiTech
HiTech
I understood everyword of the bold. At the time when I read that it hadn't been released. Fixed but not implemented. Because I hadn't read otherwise, I used the term 'supposedly fixed' in my earlier post. (As that was fixed with that patch :aok :D "Yay, 110's are safe for me to buff hunt again!")
I had not read that it had been implemented, because it was and is not where I look for my all my info, which is here; http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/board,11.0.html so I never could've known. As for the text files, I deleted that clutter because it's usually on the BBS, in this case, it was and is not. I have the General discussion as my Home page, so often miss that sort of thing posted on the main page. My appologies for that.
I couldn't read it, eyes open, closed, or just using one eye, because like it or not, it's not that thread (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/board,11.0.html) anywhere.
With your mean spirit on the matter I will not be continuing any more correspondence with you on the matter.
But, please do state the patch's release date.
Respectfully
Dolby
-
Dolby if you're sensitive to Hitech's tone you might consider that "supposedly" generally implies a degree of disbelief.
-
Dolby if you're sensitive to Hitech's tone you might consider that "supposedly" generally implies a degree of disbelief.
Lazy grammar on my behalf. Probably should've used, "supposed to have been fixed, but I have not found the patch notes in the News and Information section of this forum to confirm it."
Supposedly, cut down on a fair bit of typing.
-
Lazy grammar on my behalf. Probably should've used, "supposed to have been fixed, but I have not found the patch notes in the News and Information section of this forum to confirm it."
Supposedly, cut down on a fair bit of typing.
You are still implying by your post that we may not have fixed it. It HAS been fixed, "not supposed to have been" , it WAS past tense has been, I posted the release notes, posted a link to the release notes,posted before the release it was fixed indicating it would be in the next release. I have Done every thing I can to prove we said it was fixed at the , and you are still making insinuations that it has not been.
HiTech
-
It is already that way.... if both players see a collision.
The long and short of it is if 99% of the players would rather have the current collision model than the one you suggest. I for one would be furious if I missed the plane by a mile and died to a collision that didn't happen as far as I'm concerned.
I honestly can't recall taking damage from a collision that didn't happen on my screen. As a matter of fact, I suspect I have only taken damage in a collision a hand full of times in the last 3 years. I do this by AVOIDING contact with NME aircraft :O I know this concept isn't something you comprehend easily, but it does work....
On a side note, you should work on your SA if you are dieing to collisions as often as you say you are.
:salute
you're truly amazing.... how do i get the FE collision alone... when i'm not even moving at all sitting on runway let alone avoid it? really.. if i were you i'd try to not judge before you read the earlier threads... its happened at least couple of times...i have the disappointing memory that forgets to record it.. but many people in the LCA can bear witness to what they saw and can vouch... and 99% of players? you recently done a poll of the 400+ players recently that i don't know abt?
-
how do i get the FE collision alone.
Very simply.
Plane coming down at an angle. He pulls up at the last second just flying over top of you. Your computer does not see the pull up until slightly later and renders the plane flying threw you. Your computer detects the collision and applies damage to you.
HiTech
-
so.. i should take it and not question a change?
-
so.. i should take it and not question a change?
If you can change the speed of the Interwebz and get rid of all latency and dropped packets so there is no lag between what you see and what the other player sees, then you will be a bazillionaire.
-
I have a question about the collision model:
How come we never get prop damage from colliding with another aircraft? When we bang the prop on the ground, it bends the prop all up and kills the engine. If we fly through the center of another plane, most of the time we'll get an oil or rad leak, but the prop keeps turning.
It seems to me like the prop should be the first thing to go in most collision situations. Is a ground strike the only situation where prop damage can occur?
-
you're truly amazing.... how do i get the FE collision alone... when i'm not even moving at all sitting on runway let alone avoid it? really.. if i were you i'd try to not judge before you read the earlier threads... its happened at least couple of times...i have the disappointing memory that forgets to record it.. but many people in the LCA can bear witness to what they saw and can vouch... and 99% of players? you recently done a poll of the 400+ players recently that i don't know abt?
It sounds like you got hit by a truck.
-
You are still implying by your post that we may not have fixed it. It HAS been fixed, "not supposed to have been" , it WAS past tense has been, I posted the release notes, posted a link to the release notes,posted before the release it was fixed indicating it would be in the next release. I have Done every thing I can to prove we said it was fixed at the , and you are still making insinuations that it has not been.
HiTech
I didn't want to respond anymore to you, but your twisting my arm.
I can see with your post that you are got the wrong end of the stick, I unsure whether or not bothering to read my posts in full.
What you have quoted, is myself correcting the lack of grammar in my 2nd post in this thread, because as FLS pointed out it's implying disbelief, something I didn't initially intend, just lazy grammar at the time.
I was not and am not insinuating or implying that you have not implemented the fix, simply correcting grammar from an earlier post.
I am aware that it is fixed and implemented HiTech, thanks to your posted link to the main website... But that information was not within the BBS thread http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/board,11.0.html
You have to understand, when I first started posting in this thread I was aware it was fixed, but was yet to be aware that the fix was availiable to us outside of your offices, (as again I have to point out) I had not read it in any patch notes, because they were not here http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/board,11.0.html.
And incase you missed it;
it's usually on the BBS, in this case, it was and is not. I have the General discussion as my Home page, so often miss that sort of thing posted on the main page. My appologies for that.
I couldn't read it, eyes open, closed, or just using one eye, because like it or not, it's not that thread (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/board,11.0.html) anywhere.
I'm not sure how I can be more clear, I am trying..
In summary;
The bug from my first vid (B17 and 110) is Fixed and in the game. (I didn't know that until yesterday)
The BBS page (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/board,11.0.html) Does not contain that particular set of patch notes, which it should.
I still need (after asking twice) the release date for that patch/version, so I can scan through my vids for any collisions and email them to support next time I'm using the film viewer.
I also need to be less lazy grammatically to avoid misunderstandings that require many times more words to explain.
HiTech needs to go back and read the whole of the thread to ensure he's following everything.
I hope this finally puts this to rest
-
The long and short of it is 99% of the players [who really understand how the collision model works and why its implemented that way] would rather have the current collision model than the one you suggest.
expanded for clarity :aok
-
Now I'm confused. I thought it was what you saw on your end is what happened to you and that why only 1 person collide.
Tonight I dove on an IL2, set him on fire and pulled up about 100 yds off of him and went over the top inverted, looking down at him. Then I get collision message and insta towered while he doesn't get a collision message. He said I went through his plane on his end but I know for fact I missed on my end. So which way is it?
caution: objects may be closer then they appear! :D
-
you're truly amazing.... how do i get the FE collision alone... when i'm not even moving at all sitting on runway let alone avoid it? really.. if i were you i'd try to not judge before you read the earlier threads... its happened at least couple of times...i have the disappointing memory that forgets to record it.. but many people in the LCA can bear witness to what they saw and can vouch... and 99% of players? you recently done a poll of the 400+ players recently that i don't know abt?
It seems I have taken the bait hook line and sinker.
DES, answer me this. How would you feel if you flew by someone, missed them, and was sent to the tower? How would you explain to a new player why they blew up when they missed another plane?
-
It seems I have taken the bait hook line and sinker.
DES, answer me this. How would you feel if you flew by someone, missed them, and was sent to the tower? How would you explain to a new player why they blew up when they missed another plane?
the funny thing is, that has already happened to me, but lets think about what you said... lets say i flew by someone*vice versa*, in a merge but due to lag and all that, i actually crash into him, the fact that i i think i missed him, shows that i may have flown a little to close, but suddenly only I GET THE DAMAGE... and the other party flies away free....
OK lets put that in another sense, you're the guy who's flying st8 and level, and this guy swoops down for the kill and ACCIDENTALLY misses you, but lag and all that he crashes into you but ONLY YOU got the collision msg and the other guy flys away free....
Now then my question back to you, how do you explain to the new player that only they got the collision sitting on the runway and the other is running away damage free... a collision involves both parties and both parties should have damage no matter what.. !
Or should we just tell them to accept it and take it and not question change?
-
It's very easy, YOU saw the collision, HE didn't. So YOU take the damage and HE doesn't. It's pretty strait forward and it's is how it works all the time (until some one can prove otherwise)
So yes you except it, much like you accept that a 20 ton tank can be flipped by a bush, much like you accept that you can still see a con in the clouds due to the neon tag that have attached to their plane. It's a pretty hard and fast rule, don't collide and you won't take damage.
-
It's very easy, YOU saw the collision, HE didn't. So YOU take the damage and HE doesn't. It's pretty strait forward and it's is how it works all the time (until some one can prove otherwise)
So yes you except it, much like you accept that a 20 ton tank can be flipped by a bush, much like you accept that you can still see a con in the clouds due to the neon tag that have attached to their plane. It's a pretty hard and fast rule, don't collide and you won't take damage.
so it really boils down to who has the fastest internet and computer, and those that do will win the day.. unlike those who lag and and get damaged by collisions just by sitting on runway... hey if you tell me that thats the only way and everyone has to accept that.. then sure... :cheers:
-
no it boils down to what you see on your computer. Avoid the collision and you won't get damage. I understand that may be a bit hard to do as you spawn on the runway, but if a whirble can tower out under a bomb so can you.
-
no it boils down to what you see on your computer. Avoid the collision and you won't get damage. I understand that may be a bit hard to do as you spawn on the runway, but if a whirble can tower out under a bomb so can you.
yup, so if i have a slow computer and internet i would most certainly not be able to avoid the collision sitting on runway...i prob need to learn new fast reflexes now... ESC then end sortie.. have to do it under a sec
-
thats what macros are for! :aok
-
so it really boils down to who has the fastest internet and computer, and those that do will win the day.. unlike those who lag and and get damaged by collisions just by sitting on runway... hey if you tell me that thats the only way and everyone has to accept that.. then sure... :cheers:
I'm done with this clown..
Hitech, the collision model is as fair as it can be made, good work. Please don't change it or we'll have DES running around crashing into to people just to be a sphincter.
.squelch des.
-
See rule #4
-
yup, so if i have a slow computer and internet i would most certainly not be able to avoid the collision sitting on runway...i prob need to learn new fast reflexes now... ESC then end sortie.. have to do it under a sec
Let's change the perfectly fair and reasonable collision model to your goofy "one guy screws up so the other guy that doesn't dies too" idea. :rolleyes:
Did it occur to you that you could have - and should have upped at a different field? If your "slow computer and internet" is always that way, you should have gotten used to the fact that maybe upping into a vulch is a bad idea. Which it is anyway, regardless of lag (or lack thereof). Sure seems like a lot of fuss over one cartoon airplane.
-
The new problem I see cropping up in the myriad of explanations that may be confusing is "you need to avoid the collision."
Sometimes you can't. IE: sitting on the runway.
However:
Very simply.
Plane coming down at an angle. He pulls up at the last second just flying over top of you. Your computer does not see the pull up until slightly later and renders the plane flying threw you. Your computer detects the collision and applies damage to you.
HiTech
covers this situation.
Ever see what appears to be a plane fling under ground and popping back up? Do you understand that?
wrongway
-
The new problem I see cropping up in the myriad of explanations that may be confusing is "you need to avoid the collision."
Sometimes you can't. IE: sitting on the runway.
However:
covers this situation.
Ever see what appears to be a plane fling under ground and popping back up? Do you understand that?
wrongway
Sadly, this is the problem with any MMPG via the Internet. You have to have predictive modeling so when there are dropped packets, there is some resolution of where a moving object might be if the information doesn't arrive.
The Internet is the limiting factor that can't be avoided.
-
yup, so if i have a slow computer and internet i would most certainly not be able to avoid the collision sitting on runway...i prob need to learn new fast reflexes now... ESC then end sortie.. have to do it under a sec
The speed of a connection, nor the speed of the computer has nothing to do with it. 'Lag' in this context is simply due to the distance/time involved with getting one packet from one location to another. The speed of the last mile (your connection) is all but irrelevant in the overall path.
Collisions are 'what you see is what you get'. It cannot be any more simpler than that. It is what your computer detects. Nothing else matters. To do anything else would remove control of 'collisions' from your computer and give it to someone else.
Sadly, this is the problem with any MMPG via the Internet. You have to have predictive modeling so when there are dropped packets, there is some resolution of where a moving object might be if the information doesn't arrive.
The Internet is the limiting factor that can't be avoided.
Actually when you see a plane flying underground it is due to the offset of where you computer sees it and where it actually is on the computer of the player flying that plane. The pilot flying that plane does not go underground on his/her computer, but the time differential between your computer and his/her computer puts his/her plane in a different location on your computer, and it could be underground.
-
yup, so if i have a slow computer and internet i would most certainly not be able to avoid the collision sitting on runway...i prob need to learn new fast reflexes now... ESC then end sortie.. have to do it under a sec
This is completely wrong. The slower connection is just as likely to avoid the collision as the faster connection. Lag just means you don't see the same aircraft positions, it does not determine who benefits from it.
Most complaints about the collision model involve some degree of misunderstanding. :D
-
Collisions are 'what you see is what you get'. It cannot be any more simpler than that. It is what your computer detects. Nothing else matters. To do anything else would remove control of 'collisions' from your computer and give it to someone else.
I like how it works and suspect most do (even without doing a poll) also as long as they understand how it works.
Actually when you see a plane flying underground it is due to the offset of where you computer sees it and where it actually is on the computer of the player flying that plane. The pilot flying that plane does not go underground on his/her computer, but the time differential between your computer and his/her computer puts his/her plane in a different location on your computer, and it could be underground.
That's kind of what was in my head, but not stated well... :rock
-
The speed of a connection, nor the speed of the computer has nothing to do with it. 'Lag' in this context is simply due to the distance/time involved with getting one packet from one location to another. The speed of the last mile (your connection) is all but irrelevant in the overall path.
Collisions are 'what you see is what you get'. It cannot be any more simpler than that. It is what your computer detects. Nothing else matters. To do anything else would remove control of 'collisions' from your computer and give it to someone else.
so what i see is a a plane colliding into me and only i get the msg sitting stationary on runway, very simple indeed.
-
so what i see is a a plane colliding into me and only i get the msg sitting stationary on runway, very simple indeed.
yes, very simple.
after all the explanations in this thread, you still don't understand that from his perspective, he never hit you???
-
yes, very simple.
after all the explanations in this thread, you still don't understand that from his perspective, he never hit you???
of cos i understand but from my perspective he did hit me stationary and only i got msg... i understand doesn't mean i have to be happy with it..
-
of cos i understand it... doesn't mean i have to happy with it..
I forget, what was your solution then?
-
I forget, what was your solution then?
both planes get the damage
-
both planes get the damage
thats right.. so the guy who pulled up a hundred feet above you sitting on the runway, flew over you.. should take damage too.. you don't see how much sense that doesn't make?
-
thats right.. so the guy who pulled up a hundred feet above you sitting on the runway, flew over you.. should take damage too.. you don't see how much sense that doesn't make?
it wasn't at 100 feet...if he was at 100 feet... he wouldn't have hit me..
-
Summa sumarum:
Des is complaining about getting killed by a collision that he did see on his screen and is asking to change it so that he get's killed by collisions that aren't even happening on his screen at all. The policy of the bigger evil, so to say.
I think we can simply stop arguing at this point.
-
How can this thread not be locked yet? Des506 doesn't like the collision model, but cannot come up with a better solution - because there really isn't one. You don't have to like it, but it is the way it is. It's pointless to continue arguing, but please do...it's entertaining.
-
it wasn't at 100 feet...if he was at 100 feet... he wouldn't have hit me..
On HIS computer he completely missed you.
So, lets reverse the pilots. You are the one flying and the other guy is on the runway. You pull up at the last second and avoid him, but on his computer, due to the distance/time element, he sees you hit him and so he dies. Well now, out of the blue, after you have passed him, you explode.
Your next venture to the bulletin board will be to yell about how you avoided the collision and yet died anyway. Would that be a fair statement?
Right now you have absolute control over whether or not you collide with someone. Using your solution, you give control to another player and take it away from you. There is no way you will convince anyone you would be happy with that.
-
On HIS computer he completely missed you.
So, lets reverse the pilots. You are the one flying and the other guy is on the runway. You pull up at the last second and avoid him, but on his computer, due to the distance/time element, he sees you hit him and so he dies. Well now, out of the blue, after you have passed him, you explode.
Your next venture to the bulletin board will be to yell about how you avoided the collision and yet died anyway. Would that be a fair statement?
Right now you have absolute control over whether or not you collide with someone. Using your solution, you give control to another player and take it away from you. There is no way you will convince anyone you would be happy with that.
Even knowing how the collision model works, that still makes my (http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/Smileys/headspin.gif)
Wouldn't a better solution be to not get too close to the other guy?
-
Using your solution, you give control to another player and take it away from you. There is no way you will convince anyone you would be happy with that.
He's already stated that he would rather he take damage if the other player takes damage even if he didn't see that damage taking place as far as he was concerned.
He doesn't like it, and stands by his opinion that he isn't the only one that shares his opinion. I would be willing to put $100 that 99% of the people who understand the current collision model would choose it over his... Takers?
</beating dead horse>
-
Right now you have absolute control over whether or not you collide with someone.
That statement is just wrong in my view. (This may take a lot of imagination to visualise.) For instance with the current system, when stall fighing an enemy and both pilots get into the flat scissors. Pilot A who is defending from pilot B. Pilot A brings the fight closer and closer to the stall to force an over shoot and get his reversal. In the turn at the end of the scissor, Pilot A turns right on his stall horn. On his FE he is clear and skims past the nose of his attacker left to right. Pilot B, trying to avoid overshooting straightens up a little throttles off a little goes to his on his stallhorn, as this happens, Pilot A side swipes him on his FE. Pilot B falls out of the sky or explodes instantly. Pilot A flys off without a scrach. It's no fault of either pilot, both were fighting each other honourably. It's the mixture of the internet and the collision system.
I don't think DES's "both should die idea" would ever work at all. I still am a believer that the current system is ok, just with a little modification:
Only if both Front Ends see a collision, then a collison is recorded both take damage. I see the problems with it are equal to what we have now, but, both pilots will not be able to complain.
Plus more decent fights will not end in one player being towered prematurely.
-
He's already stated that he would rather he take damage if the other player takes damage even if he didn't see that damage taking place as far as he was concerned.
He doesn't like it, and stands by his opinion that he isn't the only one that shares his opinion. I would be willing to put $100 that 99% of the people who understand the current collision model would choose it over his... Takers?
</beating dead horse>
I still do think he fully grasps what he is asking for, as opposed to the way it is.
Currently the system rewards the player who avoids the collision by allowing him/her to fly off. He wants to reward the player who did not avoid the collision and penalize the player who did avoid it.
Dolby, my statement is absolutely true. If you do not avoid the intersection with another object, then you take damage. End of story. If you avoid it, then you take no damage. End of story.
You cannot wait for both ends to intersect as a determining factor. That would be the same as disabling all collisions. There is no physical way for both front ends to display the same exact thing. It cannot happen. If it could happen, then guess what? Your proposal is already in place! Both ends see a collision, they both take damage. Ta-da!
-
Only if both Front Ends see a collision, then a collison is recorded both take damage. I see the problems with it are equal to what we have now, but, both pilots will not be able to complain.
Plus more decent fights will not end in one player being towered prematurely.
Wouldn't work well because it would let players fly through other players aircraft guns a blazing hoping the other guy misses them on their end. It would make HO'ing a favorable tactic, so it would actually degrade gameplay.
As for your example of not having any control over being able to avoid the collision, it's only true past a point of no return. You're right that if you put yourself in a spot where you have no control surface thus leave yourself open for a ram then yes, it is out of you control, but if you have the insight to forsee that situation earlier, then you will put your stalled aircraft in a better spot relative to your attacker thus thwarting his guns and his collision.
-
I still do think he fully grasps what he is asking for, as opposed to the way it is.
Currently the system rewards the player who avoids the collision by allowing him/her to fly off. He wants to reward the player who did not avoid the collision and penalize the player who did avoid it.
Dolby, my statement is absolutely true. If you do not avoid the intersection with another object, then you take damage. End of story. If you avoid it, then you take no damage. End of story.
You cannot wait for both ends to intersect as a determining factor. That would be the same as disabling all collisions. There is no physical way for both front ends to display the same exact thing. It cannot happen. If it could happen, then guess what? Your proposal is already in place! Both ends see a collision, they both take damage. Ta-da!
Are you telling me, after all this time, that you have no control over the interwebz? :furious
-
Wouldn't work well because it would let players fly through other players aircraft guns a blazing hoping the other guy misses them on their end. It would make HO'ing a favorable tactic, so it would actually degrade gameplay.
As for your example of not having any control over being able to avoid the collision, it's only true past a point of no return. You're right that if you put yourself in a spot where you have no control surface thus leave yourself open for a ram then yes, it is out of you control, but if you have the insight to forsee that situation earlier, then you will put your stalled aircraft in a better spot relative to your attacker thus thwarting his guns and his collision.
I wasn't getting at ramming, it's just a flat scissors reversal. Not all of us are that good at clairvoyance, (especially me) so those situations can often arrive.
HOing is already favourite tactic among many, I can't see it increasing, it's a very risky gamble. People already go in guns blazing constantly on the HO hoping the other guy explodes first before colliding nose on.
-
I still do think he fully grasps what he is asking for, as opposed to the way it is....
Actually, I think he does based on this post... http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,325218.msg4254634.html#msg4254634 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,325218.msg4254634.html#msg4254634)
-
I wasn't getting at ramming, it's just a flat scissors reversal. Not all of us are that good at clairvoyance, (especially me) so those situations can often arrive.
So you're saying you could avoid the collision if you were better? ;)
-
Actually, I think he does based on this post... http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,325218.msg4254634.html#msg4254634 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,325218.msg4254634.html#msg4254634)
In that statement he did not clarify what he thought to be 'lag'. In a later post he thinks it means related to the Internet connection speed and quality. In reality the Internet connection speed/quality has little to nothing to do with 'lag' in this context.
-
I still do think he fully grasps what he is asking for, as opposed to the way it is.
Currently the system rewards the player who avoids the collision by allowing him/her to fly off.
so the person who damaged my plane while i was sitting stationary on the runway was trying to avoid me...seems much clearer now... :cheers:
p.s: just to let you know the guy who killed me or damaged my plane while i was stationary on runway was on a low level deck vulch run... he killed the guy infront of me.. and swooped past me and i get the collision msg...so i must now blame my packets for being too slow...cos he was trying to avoid me...
but since there is no physical way for both front ends to display the same exact thing according to you i shall rest and case and live with it..
-
so the person who damaged my plane while i was sitting stationary on the runway was trying to avoid me...seems much clearer now... :cheers:
No, your computer detected your plane intersecting with another object and thus damaged your plane. The other player successfully missed your plane, according to his/her computer and flew away. Both computers acted in accordance with with virtual world they were running.
p.s: just to let you know the guy who killed me or damaged my plane while i was stationary on runway was on a low level deck vulch run... he killed the guy infront of me.. and swooped past me and i get the collision msg...so i must now blame my packets for being too slow...cos he was trying to avoid me...
but since there is no physical way for both front ends to display the same exact thing according to you i shall rest and case and live with it..
No, your packets are not too slow and his are not too fast. Makes no difference, in this context. It is all about the physical distance your computer is from the other players computer. The physical distance being the distance from your computer to the server and then to the other players computer.
If both computers were directly connected to our game server network, then those two computers would stand the best chance of their virtual worlds being identical (within a few milliseconds). The longer the distance, the more the virtual worlds will differ. Speed of your Internet connection is almost irrelevant as it is but a small percentage of the overall connection distance.
-
so the person who damaged my plane while i was sitting stationary on the runway was trying to avoid me...seems much clearer now... :cheers:
p.s: just to let you know the guy who killed me or damaged my plane while i was stationary on runway was on a low level deck vulch run... he killed the guy infront of me.. and swooped past me and i get the collision msg...so i must now blame my packets for being too slow...cos he was trying to avoid me...
but since there is no physical way for both front ends to display the same exact thing according to you i shall rest and case and live with it..
This is kind of a silly point to be trying to make about either being on the runway or being afk and using it as grounds that the collision model is in the wrong. As I said to Dolby u have the power in any situation to avoid the collision. If you are stationary on the ground aside from deserving to be vulched in the first place, u r at the mercy of lady luck subjecting yourself to such risk and are much more likely to get blown to smithereens by guns than a one ended collision. Same goes for afk, you're really going to complain about getting killed while being afk? I mean really?
-
You know what the best part is? We don't really die and we get new planes every time! :aok
-
On HIS computer he completely missed you.
So, lets reverse the pilots. You are the one flying and the other guy is on the runway. You pull up at the last second and avoid him, but on his computer, due to the distance/time element, he sees you hit him and so he dies. Well now, out of the blue, after you have passed him, you lose an elevator.
Fixed
-
Another collision model discussion? Yaaaaayyyyyyy! :bhead
-
dammit, I want both computers to agree on bullet hits before anyone gets a kill.
:neener: :neener: :neener: :neener:
-
In real life two planes collide at high speed both pilots go home in a box end of story. However this is a computer game and it is modeled the way it is for a reason. So don't worry be happy.
-
22
OK TO THE ORIGINAL POSTER
A PIECE OF ADVICE BUD
STAY CLEAR OF OTHER AIRCRAFT AND YOU WONT COLLIDE
SIMPLE SOLUTION EH :)
-
In real life two planes collide at high speed both pilots go home in a box end of story. However this is a computer game and it is modeled the way it is for a reason. So don't worry be happy.
In real life, the collisions are not happening, at two separate locations (each players computer), potentially thousands of miles apart.
-
i'm not trying to insinuate anything or even gonna try to compare... but since we already had so much thought into this issue and all this trouble discussing this collision thing... i wonder what and how the game world of planes is going to be like when the players start flying... i would think collisions would be their main concern too... unless they totally eradicate the whole collision thing and are able to fly straight into each other without harm... anyone have any idea? i mean from skuzzy's and hitech's replies, they say it is close to impossible to be so precise when we merge in the air to totally prevent a collision... so i would really wanna know and would be glad to know that their players would be experiencing the same thing or even worse *hopefully they come over and we get new meat to slaughter* :devil
...just a thought...
-
The Air Warrior approach to collisions was allowing aircraft to fly directly through one another, but could not shoot each other from the front of the aircraft. For the damage model, there were "hit bubbles" scattered around the aircraft and from a head on their was simply no good gun solution on a hit bubble (or very marginal). Most engagements involved aircraft flying directly through one another before engaging in acm. Comparing AH and Aw3 models, the AH collision model is so superior to the Air Warrior non collision model, it is an insult to Hitech to even compare the two. Having said that, I can see how the AW non collision model caters to newer players more than the AH model. If you really have a serious issue with collisions, you are likely a bad pilot and need to spend some stick time in the dueling arena or training arena with an experienced pilot to iron out some of your bad habits. It will make the game more enjoyable for ya.
-
Another collision model discussion? Yaaaaayyyyyyy! :bhead <---- collision model looks ok to me? :aok
-
Joeblack would cause collisions to players that hadn't even logged in yet if that was the system. :uhoh
:rofl :rofl :rofl
semp
-
i'm not trying to insinuate anything or even gonna try to compare... but since we already had so much thought into this issue and all this trouble discussing this collision thing... i wonder what and how the game world of planes is going to be like when the players start flying... i would think collisions would be their main concern too... unless they totally eradicate the whole collision thing and are able to fly straight into each other without harm... anyone have any idea? i mean from skuzzy's and hitech's replies, they say it is close to impossible to be so precise when we merge in the air to totally prevent a collision... so i would really wanna know and would be glad to know that their players would be experiencing the same thing or even worse *hopefully they come over and we get new meat to slaughter* :devil
...just a thought...
From that response, it sounds like you still do not get it.
If you avoid intersecting with another object (i.e. collision), you never take damage. If you do not avoid intersecting with another object (i.e. collision), you take damage. It is up to you to avoid intersecting with other objects around you.. Sometimes you cannot do it, but if you do, your plane will never take damage.
-
Grizz even decent pilots get rammed it happens all the time. I have a good connection and quite often get rammed from behind and still lose the darn collision. I'm a big supporter of the you collide you both die just like real life. I think the argument that every one will turn into kamikazes just to save a base is bull. I'm sure there are those out there that will but they will be the minority.
-
Grizz even decent pilots get rammed it happens all the time. I have a good connection and quite often get rammed from behind and still lose the darn collision. I'm a big supporter of the you collide you both die just like real life. I think the argument that every one will turn into kamikazes just to save a base is bull. I'm sure there are those out there that will but they will be the minority.
Have you actually read the explanations in this thread? Because your statement says you have not... :headscratch:
-
Yep in this thread and many others before. What I'm suggesting can be done and has been done in the past. Its just my opinion I know that in this large community we have many disagree. :salute my friend I hope every one had a good holiday.
-
Grizz even decent pilots get rammed it happens all the time. I have a good connection and quite often get rammed from behind and still lose the darn collision. I'm a big supporter of the you collide you both die just like real life. I think the argument that every one will turn into kamikazes just to save a base is bull. I'm sure there are those out there that will but they will be the minority.
Have you actually read the explanations in this thread? Because your statement says you have not... :headscratch:
lusche i agree with grizz. I have been rammed from behind which i could not avoid and yet only i took damage. understanding is not the same as not liking it. I understand how the collision works, i hate the fact that most of the time I am the only one who dies in one.
I really wish both would take damage and would be the same as if I do my best to avoid an airplane and I can see on my screen that he has no gun solution on me and yet he killed me because his front end says he did.
semp
-
Grizz even decent pilots get rammed it happens all the time. I have a good connection and quite often get rammed from behind and still lose the darn collision. I'm a big supporter of the you collide you both die just like real life. I think the argument that every one will turn into kamikazes just to save a base is bull. I'm sure there are those out there that will but they will be the minority.
So you would be ok with being sent to the tower if you didnt see your plane hit another plane?
-
So you would be ok with being sent to the tower if you didnt see your plane hit another plane?
I can be sent to the tower now by an airplane that I can see on my screen that has no gun solution on me. what is the difference.
semp
-
lusche i agree with grizz. I have been rammed from behind which i could not avoid and yet only i took damage. understanding is not the same as not liking it. I understand how the collision works,
You see an enemy fighter coming at you, with the clear intention of ramming you. You desperately try to evade and the enemy passes you at 100 ft distance. You have avoided the collision.
What would you say if you would still get a "collision" message and end in tower?
-
It amazes me people really want thier plane to be damaged when they manage to avoid a collision. :huh
Yeah, that won't be a hot bulletin board topic.
You want to place control of collisions in the other players hands, and take it away from you. Sure. Yeah, I can see how well that would go.
-
So you would be ok with being sent to the tower if you didn't see your plane hit another plane?
Well ya I would be ok with that especially in the example I used a rear end collision with me missing my tail and he flys away :lol you bet I'm ok with he dies to :cheers:
Or just alter it slightly where any nose to tail contact both die i would be ok with that to
-
You see an enemy fighter coming at you, with the clear intention of ramming you. You desperately try to evade and the enemy passes you at 100 ft distance. You have avoided the collision.
What would you say if you would still get a "collision" message and end in tower?
I would say something that would get me muted for a very long time :uhoh
-
Well ya I would be ok with that especially in the example I used a rear end collision with me missing my tail and he flys away :lol you bet I'm ok with he dies to :cheers:
And so when you avoid running into the tail of a plane, you want your plane damaged because the other player could not avoid it? That is what you are saying.
-
It amazes me people really want thier plane to be damaged when they manage to avoid a collision. :huh
Yeah, that won't be a hot bulletin board topic.
You want to place control of collisions in the other players hands, and take it away from you. Sure. Yeah, I can see how well that would go.
The customer is always right. Cave in to the demands, and implement "both go down". Just for a weekend.
I will be sitting in tower, film rolling, eating cookies and laughing my butt off :lol
-
The customer is always right. Cave in to the demands, and implement "both go down". Just for a weekend.
I will be sitting in tower, film rolling, eating cookies and laughing my butt off :lol
It would have to be over a weekend, as I would not want to have to deal with the phone calls, nasty emails, and bulletin board meltdowns. Not enough cookies in the world for that one.
-
I think you would be surprised at the resilience of the AH community to adapt to their new style of game play. But your right about the complaints just look at nasty comments about the gv change a few months back :t
-
Grizz even decent pilots get rammed it happens all the time. I have a good connection and quite often get rammed from behind and still lose the darn collision. I'm a big supporter of the you collide you both die just like real life. I think the argument that every one will turn into kamikazes just to save a base is bull. I'm sure there are those out there that will but they will be the minority.
I get collided from behind and from the sides sometimes as well but 99% of the time I know that I could have avoided it if I would have either a) Had better insight as to how the fight was developing or b) Wasn't greedy and went for a marginal gun solution. Honestly there are few times where I get collided where I say "There was honestly nothing I could have done differently to have avoided that". See my "past the point of no return" point I made a few pages back in collision avoidance.
-
And a side note, do you realize how many pet dogs and cats would be getting kicked in the ribs if players were losing wings to collisions they never even saw? For that reason alone, it shall never be that way because I am an animal lover.
-
I think you would be surprised at the resilience of the AH community to adapt to their new style of game play. But your right about the complaints just look at nasty comments about the gv change a few months back :t
I have a paycheck that says after you lose every perk ride you up to intentional rams (every one you avoided as far as you could see) you would beg for the old system back.
I don't need a poll to know that ram deaths would quickly become the best defense for burning Zeke's. How is that for adaptation?
Any one who doesn't see this has they're head in a stinky warm dark place.
-
I think the problem is people STILL don't get it because they cant appreciate that the "other guy" sees something else on his end. maybe we need to show that flowchart again...
Or maybe: I'd make a chart but I dunno how to post pics :/ but something like this:
What you see | What He sees | Result
Collision | Miss | You take damage
Collision | Collision | You both take damage
Miss | Collision | He takes damage
Miss | Miss | Have a cookie, you're both fine
-
When a light fighter can collide with a tank while strafing it and fly off undamaged, the modeling needs addressing.
-
Was the collision on the fighters FE or the tank ones?
-
And a side note, do you realize how many pet dogs and cats would be getting kicked in the ribs if players were losing wings to collisions they never even saw? For that reason alone, it shall never be that way because I am an animal lover.
What you do in the privacy of your own home is your business :D At least I hope it's not out in public! :rofl
-
From that response, it sounds like you still do not get it.
If you avoid intersecting with another object (i.e. collision), you never take damage. If you do not avoid intersecting with another object (i.e. collision), you take damage. It is up to you to avoid intersecting with other objects around you.. Sometimes you cannot do it, but if you do, your plane will never take damage.
hellloooooo skuzzzy :O.... if you have read what i actually meant to say you would not have said that... the point i was making was not abt the collision model on AH anymore... to me thats a done deal as there's nothing you and i or anyone can do sitting miles away from each other according to you...i was just wondering abt the world of planes collision models... would they have the same problems as us or would they have found another way...to know another product is to know your own faults and strengths in your own product?
p.s/ why do we even have a collision model in the first place? why can't it be turned off
-
p.s/ why do we even have a collision model in the first place? why can't it be turned off
Only skilless noobs and no talent gamers want this.
-
hellloooooo skuzzzy :O.... if you have read what i actually meant to say you would not have said that... the point i was making was not abt the collision model on AH anymore... to me thats a done deal as there's nothing you and i or anyone can do sitting miles away from each other according to you...i was just wondering abt the world of planes collision models... would they have the same problems as us or would they have found another way...to know another product is to know your own faults and strengths in your own product?
p.s/ why do we even have a collision model in the first place? why can't it be turned off
people would get even more idiotic if they knew they could fly right thru enemy plane guns blazing.
-
Only skilless noobs and no talent gamers want this.
yea i'm sure you're very talented..i was just asking.. its a valid point i believe... maybe you could point out why turning it off will deem it skill -less?
-
people would get even more idiotic if they knew they could fly right thru enemy plane guns blazing.
well it will boil down to the distance between players again wouldn't it? could it be setup in the sense, the minute you meet each other guns wouldn't work? i mean... the distance between players would be the problem here again as some might see you earlier than the other...thats 1 way i think... any other ways that you might think wouldn't work?
-
What you do in the privacy of your own home is your business :D At least I hope it's not out in public! :rofl
he has no qualms about spanking his monkey in public... :noid :bolt:
-
yea i'm sure you're very talented..i was just asking.. its a valid point i believe... maybe you could point out why turning it off will deem it skill -less?
No collisions = totally unrealistic combat maneuvering - Planes can fly guns blazing through each other. No reason at all to evade. Just think off the attacks on the bombers - no need to set up an attack or to break off. Just fly through them while holding down the trigger.^
That would indeed be a huge, and very sucking change and death to any kind of ACM in the MA.
"Both die" as well as "no one dies" do both have much more severe drawbacks than what we have now. The current collision model is simply the best working one given all realities of both gameplay as well as technology. Almost every time some has asked for a change in the past, he had not understood one or both of them.
-
hellloooooo skuzzzy :O.... if you have read what i actually meant to say you would not have said that... the point i was making was not abt the collision model on AH anymore... to me thats a done deal as there's nothing you and i or anyone can do sitting miles away from each other according to you...i was just wondering abt the world of planes collision models... would they have the same problems as us or would they have found another way...to know another product is to know your own faults and strengths in your own product?
p.s/ why do we even have a collision model in the first place? why can't it be turned off
Same reason we have Radar and Dar Bar's, same reason your mission went above the "radar height" and was intercepted. Lets not answer how that ended, we have collisions for a reason, it promotes a thing called ACM, not everyone flies straight at a plane gun blazing.
We have collisions "turned off" that is with friendlies, and I agree with it. Same with friendly fire, it only hurts "YOUR" aircraft, not his.
This is a video game, you might of tried to avoid the collision and gotten the worse of it, so you died - up another plane its a cartoon life after all.
I've shot my self down in Snapshots and FSO's via friendly fire, I've had people on the runway shoot down an entire flight of planes, accidental? probably!.
Leave collisions alone, its only going to get better/worse for 1 person and the whining will only continue.
-
:noid :noid :noid :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
When a light fighter can collide with a tank while strafing it and fly off undamaged, the modeling needs addressing.
He flew away because he did not intersect/collide with anything.
Consider this addressed. :)
hellloooooo skuzzzy :O.... if you have read what i actually meant to say you would not have said that... the point i was making was not abt the collision model on AH anymore... to me thats a done deal as there's nothing you and i or anyone can do sitting miles away from each other according to you...i was just wondering abt the world of planes collision models... would they have the same problems as us or would they have found another way...to know another product is to know your own faults and strengths in your own product?
p.s/ why do we even have a collision model in the first place? why can't it be turned off
I do not know anything about any other games. It is irrelevant as everyone is impacted by physics in the same manner. If a game uses a server driven model then the issue may not be as exacerbated as it is when using a client driven model. Both models have pluses and minuses.
As you slow objects down, the separation issue becomes less of a factor.
-
well it will boil down to the distance between players again wouldn't it? could it be setup in the sense, the minute you meet each other guns wouldn't work? i mean... the distance between players would be the problem here again as some might see you earlier than the other...thats 1 way i think... any other ways that you might think wouldn't work?
Even though I am convinced you are trolling, I can't stop my self from providing a response.
"could it be setup in the sense, the minute you meet each other guns wouldn't work" The whole point is when you don't have to maneuver to avoid a crash, guns working or not, you can come in guns blazing and pass right though and leave with no fear of damage. You want to turn this into Xbox or something?
I am done with this thread, and have added a name to my permasquelch macro...
-
No collisions = totally unrealistic combat maneuvering - Planes can fly guns blazing through each other. No reason at all to evade. Just think off the attacks on the bombers - no need to set up an attack or to break off. Just fly through them while holding down the trigger.^
That would indeed be a huge, and very sucking change and death to any kind of ACM in the MA.
if no collision = totally unrealistic, then what abt colliding with someone and you get it but not the other person? isn't that unrealistic too just cos 1 sees it and 1 doesn't?
realism should come to a certain extend to BOTH parties instead of boiling it down to what 1 can see what the other doesn't. ever thought for a moment what if some actually knew you lagged from the distance, and all he did was aim for you constantly and the last min pull up, you will go down constantly.. if you say thats the end of acm, what abt the guns on the buffs? you say it like you dun need to have any skills in acm to shoot down a b17 with guns firing...
i am not saying that my way is the right or correct way or i solely believe in my methods, i am just trying to discuss it with you guys and think of a better way for everyone... did everyone agree on the gv systems when it first came? i believe the majority whined! but look at it now... all i'm saying or asking is the question... WHY NOT..
-
Even though I am convinced you are trolling, I can't stop my self from providing a response.
"could it be setup in the sense, the minute you meet each other guns wouldn't work" The whole point is when you don't have to maneuver to avoid a crash, guns working or not, you can come in guns blazing and pass right though and leave with no fear of damage. You want to turn this into Xbox or something?
I am done with this thread, and have added a name to my permasquelch macro...
wow.. you're finally done with this thread... good.. :rock
your squelching hurts me so... :cry
-
if no collision = totally unrealistic, then what abt colliding with someone and you get it but not the other person? isn't that unrealistic too just cos 1 sees it and 1 doesn't?
you are still mixing things up.
The fact that one has a collision on his screen and the other has not is caused by the very nature of internet. It doesn't matter if we call this "realistic" or not, it is what it is and cannot be changed.
The collision model in AH however, has been designed to implement a solution that works on this 'unrealistic' premise and get the most realistic results out of it. And "what you see is what you get" is the most realistic method in terms of gameplay results.
-
you are still mixing things up.
The fact that one has a collision on his screen and the other has not is caused by the very nature of internet. It doesn't matter if we call this "realistic" or not, it is what it is and cannot be changed.
The collision model in AH however, has been designed to implement a solution that works on this 'unrealistic' premise and get the most realistic results out of it. And "what you see is what you get" is the most realistic method in terms of gameplay results.
oh its very realistic i can tell you that.. i love it... but not all parts of it... i still think the collision model needs a little more tweaking tho.. somehow...
-
He flew away because he did not intersect/collide with anything.
Consider this addressed. :)
If there was no intersect/collide, then the message that a guy in a p51 collided with me was an error.
There should never be an instance where a light fighter collides with a tank, displays message that plane collided with said tank, and then the p51 which destroyed a tank with his collision flies away not even smoking.
-
If there was no intersect/collide, then the message that a guy in a p51 collided with me was an error.
There should never be an instance where a light fighter collides with a tank, displays message that plane collided with said tank, and then the p51 which destroyed a tank with his collision flies away not even smoking.
Without film there's just speculation.
-
If there was no intersect/collide, then the message that a guy in a p51 collided with me was an error.
There should never be an instance where a light fighter collides with a tank, displays message that plane collided with said tank, and then the p51 which destroyed a tank with his collision flies away not even smoking.
Previous to Version 2.6 Patch 0, there was a collider bug. It was fixed. I cannot say there is not any bugs anywhere, but if you have a current film showing what you described, then send it in. More than happy to take a look at it.
-
Previous to Version 2.6 Patch 0, there was a collider bug. It was fixed. I cannot say there is not any bugs anywhere, but if you have a current film showing what you described, then send it in. More than happy to take a look at it.
Release date...
-
Cool......I haven't had it happen since the update mentioned but it sure was happening before it.
-
Release date...
October 2011
-
Three collisions last night. All said someone had collided with me. I went down to damage all three times.
No complaint here because on another night it may be just the opposite. If you fight in close quarters there will be collisions. It all evens out in the wash.
:)
-
Three collisions last night. All said someone had collided with me. I went down to damage all three times.
No complaint here because on another night it may be just the opposite. If you fight in close quarters there will be collisions. It all evens out in the wash.
:)
It doesn't even out for me. People collide with me far more than I collide with them because I avoid the airplane.
-
oh its very realistic i can tell you that.. i love it... but not all parts of it... i still think the collision model needs a little more tweaking tho.. somehow...
There is no magical "somehow". Things are as they are and even if computers transmitted data at light speed over the internet it still wouldn't be fast enough.
-
Three collisions last night. All said someone had collided with me. I went down to damage all three times.
No complaint here because on another night it may be just the opposite. If you fight in close quarters there will be collisions. It all evens out in the wash.
:)
thats cuz you need to learn how to fly :aok
-
I'm not gonna read the whole thread. Has someone posted Tec's flowchart?
-
How about making a collision and instant death for both players? Maybe It might just decrease the head-on shooting and ramming...
-
How about making a collision and instant death for both players? Maybe It might just decrease the head-on shooting and ramming...
It would make intentional collisions rampant, and the person not trying to do the collision would have little way of avoiding it.
Why do you think it would decrease those things? People do those already knowing they'll likely pay the price. All your suggestion would do is make it so that they know the other guy will also pay the price with them.
-
It would make intentional collisions rampant, and the person not trying to do the collision would have little way of avoiding it.
Why do you think it would decrease those things? People do those already knowing they'll likely pay the price. All your suggestion would do is make it so that they know the other guy will also pay the price with them.
Well, it is obvious that people don't like to die in the MA. So why would people want to risk ramming another plane knowing they will die. The current model allows for some people to ram and receive little or no damage while the other player got killed.
-
Well, it is obvious that people don't like to die in the MA. So why would people want to risk ramming another plane knowing they will die. The current model allows for some people to ram and receive little or no damage while the other player got killed.
With the current model you have to correctly guess the right empty place somewhere ahead of the enemy plane, with no actual knowledge how things are really looking on your opponents screen. Thus, a successful ram is quite difficult, it's waaaay les 'efficient' than simply shooting your opponent down.
"Both go down" completely reverses the equation. In this case, it will be terribly difficult to evade a ram, as you can dodge the rammer on your screen and still go down. It's basically turning the world upside down.
-
It was just a seggestion. I always got rammed by some guy picking in a fight I was currently in and I would loose a wing and he would fly away just perfect...that crap made me the most angry out of anything. So by having both players die it would make me happy to know he didn't live either.
-
It was just a seggestion. I always got rammed by some guy picking in a fight I was currently in and I would loose a wing and he would fly away just perfect...that crap made me the most angry out of anything. So by having both players die it would make me happy to know he didn't live either.
But he didn't collide with you... you collided with him.
-
But he didn't collide with you... you collided with him.
Then it's my fault I deserve to die.
-
Then it's my fault I deserve to die.
exactly :)
-
exactly :)
Misery loves company :)
-
It was just a seggestion. I always got rammed by some guy picking in a fight I was currently in and I would loose a wing and he would fly away just perfect...that crap made me the most angry out of anything. So by having both players die it would make me happy to know he didn't live either.
Imagine watching him try to pick you and passing 100 yards behind you, only for you to die in a collision with him. That is what you are asking for.
-
The current model allows for some people to ram and receive little or no damage while the other player got killed.
No it doesn't.
It allows the other player to fly away undamaged only if he managed to evade the collision on his end.
It's simple really... Don't fly into the other guy; and if it looks like he's going to fly into you get out of his way. It's the exact same strategy you'd have to use in RL.
I can't believe how much discussion there is on something that can be almost completely avoided by paying attention to your surroundings, that's modeled completely adequately for 99.9999999% of player-to-player confrontations, isn't due to anything other than the time it takes data to move from one player to another, is by far the lesser of many evils when it comes to potential "fixes" for internet lag, is the fix that most approximates RL, and is the fix that most improves game-play by forcing players to try to avoid bumping into each other.
Its worth repeating-
Don't fly into the other guy; and if it looks like he's going to fly into you get out of his way. It's the exact same strategy you'd have to use in RL.
If you fail at those ultra-basic requirements, you'll take damage every time. If you succeed, you won't ever take collision damage.
Please tell me people didn't actually create an account and pay for a "realistic-as-possible" game where they're surprised they need to do that, and where there are penalties for failing to do that?
Restructuring the collision model around the fact that in exceedingly rare instances a GV could possibly take damage from a collision that he saw, while a plane could fly away unscathed by the collision he didn't see makes about as much sense as... well... I guess I can't think of anything that makes sense on such a small scale. Never mind.
Sure, occasionally you'll take damage that you can't avoid and that isn't your fault. But in reality, if you're experiencing a collision more than once in every 40 or so hours of game-play I'd argue that you aren't paying close enough attention to your surroundings. Look out the windows! That's what they're there for!
One more time-
Don't fly into the other guy; and if it looks like he's going to fly into you get out of his way. It's the exact same strategy you'd have to use in RL.
Skuzzy- Until technology advances to the point where data can be transmitted across the world and back instantaneously (does that mean it would have to travel at twice-instantaneous speed??) I think you've got the collision model right! But, just to help folks out maybe you should have a logon message pop up saying something along the lines of "Try not to bump into the bad guys, or let the bad guys bump into you!". Maybe it could be in 72-font, and maybe even blink?
-
I will have to look when I get back to Dallas. But I am almost positive vehicles do not have collisions with other players.
HiTech
-
I will have to look when I get back to Dallas. But I am almost positive vehicles do not have collisions with other players.
HiTech
AFAIK no one takes damage but I have seen the white "SoandSo has collided with you" while I am in a tank. I have also heard a big CLANK that sounds like a collision while in a plane strafing a tank but did not get an orange "you have collided" message.
Sitting on an enemy runway in front of the aircraft spawn is a different matter.
The only thing gv's collide with are trees and buildings. :aok
wrongway
-
Imagine watching him try to pick you and passing 100 yards behind you, only for you to die in a collision with him. That is what you are asking for.
Yes.
-
Yes.
Well, that's stupid.
Sorry, but it is.
-
I will have to look when I get back to Dallas. But I am almost positive vehicles do not have collisions with other players.
HiTech
They do if the other player is in a plane.
ack-ack
-
No it doesn't.
It allows the other player to fly away undamaged only if he managed to evade the collision on his end.
It's simple really... Don't fly into the other guy; and if it looks like he's going to fly into you get out of his way. It's the exact same strategy you'd have to use in RL.
I can't believe how much discussion there is on something that can be almost completely avoided by paying attention to your surroundings, that's modeled completely adequately for 99.9999999% of player-to-player confrontations, isn't due to anything other than the time it takes data to move from one player to another, is by far the lesser of many evils when it comes to potential "fixes" for internet lag, is the fix that most approximates RL, and is the fix that most improves game-play by forcing players to try to avoid bumping into each other.
Its worth repeating-
Don't fly into the other guy; and if it looks like he's going to fly into you get out of his way. It's the exact same strategy you'd have to use in RL.
If you fail at those ultra-basic requirements, you'll take damage every time. If you succeed, you won't ever take collision damage.
Please tell me people didn't actually create an account and pay for a "realistic-as-possible" game where they're surprised they need to do that, and where there are penalties for failing to do that?
Restructuring the collision model around the fact that in exceedingly rare instances a GV could possibly take damage from a collision that he saw, while a plane could fly away unscathed by the collision he didn't see makes about as much sense as... well... I guess I can't think of anything that makes sense on such a small scale. Never mind.
Sure, occasionally you'll take damage that you can't avoid and that isn't your fault. But in reality, if you're experiencing a collision more than once in every 40 or so hours of game-play I'd argue that you aren't paying close enough attention to your surroundings. Look out the windows! That's what they're there for!
One more time-
Don't fly into the other guy; and if it looks like he's going to fly into you get out of his way. It's the exact same strategy you'd have to use in RL.
Skuzzy- Until technology advances to the point where data can be transmitted across the world and back instantaneously (does that mean it would have to travel at twice-instantaneous speed??) I think you've got the collision model right! But, just to help folks out maybe you should have a logon message pop up saying something along the lines of "Try not to bump into the bad guys, or let the bad guys bump into you!". Maybe it could be in 72-font, and maybe even blink?
Quoted for awesomeness
-
even if computers transmitted data at light speed over the internet it still wouldn't be fast enough.
:headscratch: :O
-
I will have to look when I get back to Dallas. But I am almost positive vehicles do not have collisions with other players.
HiTech
Vehicles..... no collission.
-
Oh god... Please don't change it so both die in a one-sided collision... That would be unbelievably frustrating... :(
-
Oh god... Please don't change it so both die in a one-sided collision... That would be unbelievably frustrating... :(
How often do you fly away when some has collided with you?
In my experience, they have guns blazing taking me down even if they collide. I go down they fly away. Aggravating.
-
How often do you fly away when some has collided with you?
In my experience, they have guns blazing taking me down even if they collide. I go down they fly away. Aggravating.
:bhead
Again...That is because on you're end you hit him, and on his end he avoided you.
-
even if computers transmitted data at light speed over the internet it still wouldn't be fast enough.
:headscratch: :O
Light speed is not a magical "instant" speed. Data already flows through the internet at about 40-50% of the speed of light. If data flowed at the speed of light it would reduce lag, but not eliminate it. A ping time of 250 from, say, Japan would be 100 to 125 instead. That is a lot better, but would still result in significant differences on each front end.
How often do you fly away when some has collided with you?
When they collide with me? Every single time that it doesn't also say "You collided with soandso" as well.
-
How often do you fly away when some has collided with you?
In my experience, they have guns blazing taking me down even if they collide. I go down they fly away. Aggravating.
Seems he collided with you and you collided with his bullets.
Aggravating I bet. :P
wrongway
-
:headscratch: :O
Light speed is not a magical "instant" speed. Data already flows through the internet at about 40-50% of the speed of light. If data flowed at the speed of light it would reduce lag, but not eliminate it. A ping time of 250 from, say, Japan would be 100 to 125 instead. That is a lot better, but would still result in significant differences on each front end.
When they collide with me? Every single time that it doesn't also say "You collided with soandso" as well.
the highlighted part....that sounds wrong....not that I know but isn't the speed of light 150,000 or so miles a second?
-
the highlighted part....that sounds wrong....not that I know but isn't the speed of light 150,000 or so miles a second?
It's 186,282 miles/second. However, what Karnak said sounds intuitively right to me. If you figure that data must travel from your computer to the server, from the server to the other guy's computer, and vice-versa, you're easily looking at 100ms travel time. A round trip from Japan to, say, Nebraska, at the speed of light would take ~100ms for example.
-
the signal travels at ~60% c in optical fibre, and every router hop adds a small processing delay so for longer trips 25-50% c sounds about right :)
-
:bhead
Again...That is because on you're end you hit him, and on his end he avoided you.
That is not possible if on one end there is a collision, then the other end has to collide as well.
For every action there IS a Equal and Opposite Reaction - Newton.
-
That is not possible if on one end there is a collision, then the other end has to collide as well.
For every action there IS a Equal and Opposite Reaction - Newton.
Not possible:
(http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/8728/ramotherfexg7.jpg)
(http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/1364/rammyfegg1.jpg)
Same moment, taken from P-47 pilot's film (upper) and P-51 pilot's film (lower)
-
That is not possible if on one end there is a collision, then the other end has to collide as well.
For every action there IS a Equal and Opposite Reaction - Newton.
That is true only when dealing with a single reality. In Aces High we are dealing with multiple realities that are talking to each other. One reality is in your computer, another reality is in the server and other realities are in each of the other player's computers. These realities are all similar, but slightly different, as Lusche's pictures show, and thus you can collide with Karnak while Karnak does not collide with you.
-
How often do you fly away when some has collided with you?
In my experience, they have guns blazing taking me down even if they collide. I go down they fly away. Aggravating.
I've been "collided with" from behind twice this month in my short amount of flying time. Both times I was undamaged and they went down... In one case they even apologized to me. On my end, it didn't even look like they were all that close to me... I couldn't figure out where they went.
The best solution is the way we have it now, as annoying as some situations may be. The discrepancies on each player's screen make it impossible for it to be perfectly balanced in every situation.
That is not possible if on one end there is a collision, then the other end has to collide as well.
For every action there IS a Equal and Opposite Reaction - Newton.
Latency!
You know what HTC should do? They should just get rid of collision messages. That way people stop complaining and just assume they got shot.
-
:noid :noid :noid :bhead :bhead :bhead
-
the highlighted part....that sounds wrong....not that I know but isn't the speed of light 150,000 or so miles a second?
:lol Of coarse it is wrong. The equipment adds latency when processing the signals, but light does not "flow" slower than welll, light :lol HT may be good, but he is not that good. Slowing down light is not that easy :rofl
-
:lol Of coarse it is wrong. The equipment adds latency when processing the signals, but light does not "flow" slower than welll, light :lol HT may be good, but he is not that good. Slowing down light is not that easy :rofl
I could have used more precise terminology, but the gist of what I posted is correct. Data is transmitted through the internet at something like 40% c. Data is transmitted via a mix of electrical and light based singles. The reason for the data transmission rate being slower than c is electrical resistance and processing time at routers.
-
They do if the other player is in a plane.
ack-ack
I can confirm this..on both ends. I've collided with GVs when in a plane and had planes collide with me when in a GV.
But I have never collided with a plane while in a GV now had a GV collide with me when in a plane
-
My own personal opinion on collisions is that for ity to occure it shoudl show up as a collision on both ends.
In other words if both sides see a collision then they collided. if only one side sees it then no collision occurred.
I seem to remember HT explaining why this cant or shouldnt be a couple of years ago. And the explanation seemed reasonable.
But still it does only seem fair particularly when I collide with someone behind me while going forward LOL
-
My own personal opinion on collisions is that for ity to occure it shoudl show up as a collision on both ends.
In other words if both sides see a collision then they collided. if only one side sees it then no collision occurred.
I seem to remember HT explaining why this cant or shouldnt be a couple of years ago. And the explanation seemed reasonable.
But still it does only seem fair particularly when I collide with someone behind me while going forward LOL
It would result in people flying through their targets (particularly against bombers), guns blazing as there would almost never be a collision and you can't miss from 10ft. Cannon armed birds would have to cease firing before arriving at the target or they would shoot themselves down. Machine gun armed fighters could just blaze away all the way through though.
-
In other words if both sides see a collision then they collided. if only one side sees it then no collision occurred.
It's (almost?) impossible for them to both see the same collision.
Changing the modeling to reflect what you suggest would be the same as just getting rid of the collision model entirely.
As an example, a few years back a squadie and I were trying to land a fighter on top of a bomber while in flight in the TA or DA. The bomber was just in auto-level, at a stable speed. I'd fly up behind him and above him and match his speed, and then slowly settle down onto his back. I was trying to hook my landing gear in front of his wing roots. I figured that when my prop hit him it would bend and stop and I'd plunk right down into place.
In reality though, while I saw myself "hovering" on top of him, he still saw me "hovering" behind his tail. When my wheels touched him (in my view), I'd break up and fall away. From his perspective though, I'd break up and fall away while still behind him; he never saw me touch his plane, and he never took any damage.
We switched positions, and had the exact same result. It looked like he was hovering in position behind me, and then he'd just break up and fall away. I even saw the "smoke" come off his tires like it would if he'd touched down on the runway, even though from my perspective he never touched me (and I took no damage as a result).
The distance we were offset was the result of our combined lag, and since lag is time-related our offset distance was at it's minimum possible (we were flying at a matched, slow, speed, and at the same heading). We were offset about 50yds or less. Had we been flying high speed in opposite headings (head-on) our lag-related separation would have been maximized (he'd have seen himself more than 50yds from where I was seeing him). Had we both been on high-speed connections our separation would have been less, but still not perfect (I was on 28K dial-up).
Essentially, we were doing our very best to make both of our planes "collide" in a controlled fashion, and found it impossible... Only the guy in back took damage. Had I zoomed under him with my fighter, and pulled up in front of him, I could have missed him on my end and caused him to die of a collision. I could have flown up in front of his nose on my screen, while flying through his tail on his screen.
Because everyone has different lag, and because lag varies at times, it would be (almost?) impossible to learn (with any consistency)to effectively "ram" someone so that both players saw the collision. If your opponent intentionally tries to ram you, you're pretty dang safe. It's when he gets real close and then tries to avoid you where you'd have a higher likelihood of suffering a collision.
-
:bhead
Again...That is because on you're end you hit him, and on his end he avoided you.
Might want to read that again.
-
Might want to read that again.
You might want to read the thread again. If they collide with you, they go down, if you collide with them you go down. The problem most people have with this concept is that they are locked into an "at fault" conceptual view of collisions, as though we are discussing an auto collision in reality. In Aces High terms, you rammed his nose with your tail. He is not "at fault" like he rear ended you as, per him not going down, he never touched the image of your aircraft on his screen.
-
You might want to read the thread again. If they collide with you, they go down, if you collide with them you go down. The problem most people have with this concept is that they are locked into an "at fault" conceptual view of collisions, as though we are discussing an auto collision in reality. In Aces High terms, you rammed his nose with your tail. He is not "at fault" like he rear ended you as, per him not going down, he never touched the image of your aircraft on his screen.
You might try reading that again man.
I went down to bullets. He flew off with a missing elevator, missing airleron, damaged engine, and my favorite damaged guns, ect.. after he collided with me. I want the collider to go down no matter what. That is my entire beef through out this thread.
-
You might try reading that again man.
I went down to bullets. He flew off with a missing elevator, missing airleron, damaged engine, and my favorite damaged guns, ect.. after he collided with me. I want the collider to go down no matter what. That is my entire beef through out this thread.
So an insta-pop on collision? That seems like it would make the people who are already complaining about the collision model even more pissed of...
-
You might try reading that again man.
I went down to bullets. He flew off with a missing elevator, missing airleron, damaged engine, and my favorite damaged guns, ect.. after he collided with me. I want the collider to go down no matter what. That is my entire beef through out this thread.
If you collide with another plane you take damage, that does not always mean the plane crashes, but it does mean it takes damage. You feel the plane must always crash?
-
If you collide with another plane you take damage, that does not always mean the plane crashes, but it does mean it takes damage. You feel the plane must always crash?
Yep, I want consequences for being reckless.
-
You might try reading that again man.
I went down to bullets. He flew off with a missing elevator, missing airleron, damaged engine, and my favorite damaged guns, ect.. after he collided with me. I want the collider to go down no matter what. That is my entire beef through out this thread.
Why? If a P-38 has a close call and the number 1 prop strikes the other aircraft, why should the P-38 be destroyed and not just the number 1 engine?
-
Yep, I want consequences for being reckless.
There are consequences for colliding with another plane:
You take damage, sometimes this damages causes you to crash, sometimes it does not.
-
Yep, I want consequences for being reckless.
There are. If you collide you take damage. If you don't collide, you don't.
-
There are. If you collide you take damage. If you don't collide, you don't.
I beg to differ....how do you collide sitting stationary and only you got collision msg? lag between computers was the reason.....the problem now is the discrepancies between the time lag between computers, thats why we have so much trouble with this current model which makes it unfair for some. if somehow we made it so that no matter what the lag between computers is or what can you or what you can't see is...we still get the same result for both parties.
All i have heard from everyone here is that they do not want to change because they if they try to avoid a collision and they still get into accidents its unfair to them. what about people actually trying to collide into you cos they can't fly? and some how only you get collision msg? its no longer about what you can see or what you can't see on your FE. cos my collision sitting on runway came from the back of my plane.
-
I beg to differ....how do you collide sitting stationary and only you got collision msg? lag between computers was the reason.....the problem now is the discrepancies between the time lag between computers, thats why we have so much trouble with this current model which makes it unfair for some. if somehow we made it so that no matter what the lag between computers is or what can you or what you can't see is...we still get the same result for both parties.
He flew away because he did not intersect/collide with anything.
Consider this addressed. :)
All i have heard from everyone here is that they do not want to change because they if they try to avoid a collision and they still get into accidents its unfair to them.
No. People don't want it to change because they don't want to take damage when there was no collision on their front end
what about people actually trying to collide into you cos they can't fly?
It is nearly impossible to "RAM" someone on purpose:
With the current model you have to correctly guess the right empty place somewhere ahead of the enemy plane, with no actual knowledge how things are really looking on your opponents screen. Thus, a successful ram is quite difficult, it's waaaay les 'efficient' than simply shooting your opponent down.
and some how only you get collision msg? its no longer about what you can see or what you can't see on your FE. cos my collision sitting on runway came from the back of my plane.
Obviously you really, really, really, really still don't understand how things work.
Have you ever taken off from a cv and see someone else taking off from the same cv but over there---->?
Same thing.
You were sitting on the runway.
You were hit by someone from behind who was trying to vultch you. (Were you hit by his bullets too?)
You saw him hit you. Maybe you even saw him fly into the ground.
He saw himself pass over your plane by, lets say, 50 feet.
He did not hit your plane.
You want him to take damage even though he did not "see" himself collide with you.
Now, reverse the situation.
You dive on an unsuspecting, AFK, airplane.
You dive from above, pass 100 feet behind his tail, and continue down under him, eventually auguring.
He came back from making a sandwich just in time to see you dive in and fly right through the tail of his plane, taking off his rudder and left elevator in a collision.
Should you have blown up, saving yourself from a humiliating dirt face plant?
wrongway
-
Have you ever taken off from a cv and see someone else taking off from the same cv but over there---->?
You were sitting on the runway.
You were hit by someone from behind who was trying to vultch you. (Were you hit by his bullets too?)
You saw him hit you. Maybe you even saw him fly into the ground.
He saw himself pass over your plane by, lets say, 50 feet.
He did not hit your plane.
You want him to take damage even though he did not "see" himself collide with you.
Now, reverse the situation.
You dive on an unsuspecting, AFK, airplane.
You dive from above, pass 100 feet behind his tail, and continue down under him, eventually auguring.
He came back from making a sandwich just in time to see you dive in and fly right through the tail of his plane, taking off his rudder and left elevator in a collision.
Should you have blown up, saving yourself from a humiliating dirt face plant?
wrongway
well.. the point here i am making since realism is the key here...DUN FLY SO LOW if not you will get damaged from collisions...you know something is going spawn out on the runway sometime.. and you still wanna fly that low around the area? for your second scenario... DUN FLY SO CLOSE and control your power so you dun collide and damage your own plane... doesn 't that teach people to fly better? shouldn't you have at least a 100m bubble ard your own plane and others to prevent collisions? isn't that being close to realism? instead of having 1 party to suffer the consequences and the other flies away scape free cos he doesn't see it on his FE?
i believe the threshold for discrepancies in distance to target is hard to gauge as skuzzy and the rest have explained... so shouldn't you make compensations to account for that?
i have ever flown against a warping plane while diving down to meet him... and when i finally have a solution to fire... he warps, and i dive away and only i get the collision msg... sure.. its fair for the defender... and the attacker is pissed off in this instance... i can think of other instances where its fair for the attacker but the defenders are pissed off... and you tell me the collision model is awesome and doesn't have to change or tweaked somewhat?
-
des, wrongway is absolutely correct when he states-
Obviously you really, really, really, really still don't understand how things work.
You prove it with these statements and questions-
well.. the point here i am making since realism is the key here...DUN FLY SO LOW if not you will get damaged from collisions...you know something is going spawn out on the runway sometime.. and you still wanna fly that low around the area? for your second scenario... DUN FLY SO CLOSE and control your power so you dun collide and damage your own plane... doesn 't that teach people to fly better? shouldn't you have at least a 100m bubble ard your own plane and others to prevent collisions? isn't that being close to realism? instead of having 1 party to suffer the consequences and the other flies away scape free cos he doesn't see it on his FE?
i believe the threshold for discrepancies in distance to target is hard to gauge as skuzzy and the rest have explained... so shouldn't you make compensations to account for that?
i have ever flown against a warping plane while diving down to meet him... and when i finally have a solution to fire... he warps, and i dive away and only i get the collision msg... sure.. its fair for the defender... and the attacker is pissed off in this instance... i can think of other instances where its fair for the attacker but the defenders are pissed off... and you tell me the collision model is awesome and doesn't have to change or tweaked somewhat?
Do you understand that if the entire arena is empty with only you and one other player in it in a 1v1 fight, there are really 4 airplanes involved? Not 2? Start with that.
The answers to all of your questions are already in this (and several other) threads, so I don't think there's any point in repeating the information. You've either skipped over/missed it, or looked at it without comprehending it. Either way, to answer your questions you need to understand what's already been posted. Go back and re-read it.
-
des, wrongway is absolutely correct when he states-
You prove it with these statements and questions-
Do you understand that if the entire arena is empty with only you and one other player in it in a 1v1 fight, there are really 4 airplanes involved? Not 2? Start with that.
The answers to all of your questions are already in this (and several other) threads, so I don't think there's any point in repeating the information. You've either skipped over/missed it, or looked at it without comprehending it. Either way, to answer your questions you need to understand what's already been posted. Go back and re-read it.
You are wasting your time and feeding the troll. He gets it, understands it, doesn't like it and won't be happy until collisions are eliminated which is the dumbest most idiotic solution to HIS problem.
Stop wasting your time.
-
i have ever flown against a warping plane while diving down to meet him... and when i finally have a solution to fire... he warps, and i dive away and only i get the collision msg... sure.. its fair for the defender... and the attacker is pissed off in this instance... i can think of other instances where its fair for the attacker but the defenders are pissed off... and you tell me the collision model is awesome and doesn't have to change or tweaked somewhat?
:lol
:facepalm
-
You are wasting your time and feeding the troll. He gets it, understands it, doesn't like it and won't be happy until collisions are eliminated which is the dumbest most idiotic solution to HIS problem.
Stop wasting your time.
Probably this ^
Des is either being annoying on purpose, or he is incredibly slow to learn. I wonder which he will pick :rolleyes:
-
I want the collider to go down no matter what.
But if there wasn't a collision on his front end, why should his plane blow up. I am surprised how many people have a tough time grasping the concept of the collision model in this game when it's rather simple to understand. Front end sees collision then there is a collision, if the front end doesn't see a collision then there isn't a collision. How hard is that to understand?
Collisions happen in this game, just as they do in real life. It sucks when it happens but unlike real life, we do get a shiny new plane for our mistake instead of a grave.
ack-ack
-
But if there wasn't a collision on his front end, why should his plane blow up. I am surprised how many people have a tough time grasping the concept of the collision model in this game when it's rather simple to understand. Front end sees collision then there is a collision, if the front end doesn't see a collision then there isn't a collision. How hard is that to understand?
Collisions happen in this game, just as they do in real life. It sucks when it happens but unlike real life, we do get a shiny new plane for our mistake instead of a grave.
ack-ack
why are you surprised.....I have not always agreed with you in things you say...but I think your a smart guy and could figure it out....people are just ignorant, I am not surprised at all.
the collision model is about the best we can get....been here since tour 52 and cant say I ever wanted the colision model changed it works great.....I dived down on a AFK missed with my rounds slammed into him with my plane I broke apart and fell away..... he kept flying with no damage.
works just as HTC says.
-
well.. the point here i am making since realism is the key here...DUN FLY SO LOW if not you will get damaged from collisions...you know something is going spawn out on the runway sometime.. and you still wanna fly that low around the area? for your second scenario... DUN FLY SO CLOSE and control your power so you dun collide and damage your own plane... doesn 't that teach people to fly better? shouldn't you have at least a 100m bubble ard your own plane and others to prevent collisions? isn't that being close to realism? instead of having 1 party to suffer the consequences and the other flies away scape free cos he doesn't see it on his FE?
i believe the threshold for discrepancies in distance to target is hard to gauge as skuzzy and the rest have explained... so shouldn't you make compensations to account for that?
i have ever flown against a warping plane while diving down to meet him... and when i finally have a solution to fire... he warps, and i dive away and only i get the collision msg... sure.. its fair for the defender... and the attacker is pissed off in this instance... i can think of other instances where its fair for the attacker but the defenders are pissed off... and you tell me the collision model is awesome and doesn't have to change or tweaked somewhat?
Des,say HTC put in your 100m bubble,how happy would you be to explode when you were 150m away on your end but 99m on the other guys? You would be towered for no reason whatsoever.
I flew a sim years ago that use this very principle,some nights when latency was bad you'd explode to a collision before you got to guns range! This is what caused me to leave that sim,it just wasnt fair to anyone because you could never tell what was a safe range to avoid a collision.
ymmv.
:salute
-
why are you surprised.....I have not always agreed with you in things you say...but I think your a smart guy and could figure it out....people are just ignorant, I am not surprised at all.
the collision model is about the best we can get....been here since tour 52 and cant say I ever wanted the colision model changed it works great.....I dived down on a AFK missed with my rounds slammed into him with my plane I broke apart and fell away..... he kept flying with no damage.
works just as HTC says.
Use the same scenerio and you end up with oil damage, or a damaged gun. Which happens. Why should you be able to fly away from a collision at all?
And AKAK, I understand that in some cases the Collider doesn't see the collision and the collidee see's it, a few seconds later the collider gets a collision message and gets damage.
But it has never happened to me, all collisions that I can remember that I have caused I saw it on my screen. So that leads me to believe in most cases the collider see's it most of the time, but not alwasy the collidee. So I still feel the collider who caused the collision is at fault and should go down. Also I see people apologize on 200 all the time for colliding, they know they did it, whether or not the collidee saw it on their end. That reinforces my view that the collider see's the collision on their end the majority of the time.
Collider = player causing the collision
Collidee = player receiving the collision
-
I'm going to need more popcorn, this tread is great reading material. :D
-
Collider = player causing the collision
Collidee = player receiving the collision
This is nonsensical in terms of AH or other computer network environments. It sounds like you are still locked into a real world mentality and want to assign fault as in an auto accident. It does not work that way. All that matters is if your FE detects another object intersecting with your airplane. It does not matter if it happens in the part of the 3D space being rendered for you to see on your screen or in a part that is not being visibly rendered. It does not matter which object was moving in which direction or at what speed. It does not matter what part of which object intersected with the other.
-
Use the same scenerio and you end up with oil damage, or a damaged gun. Which happens. Why should you be able to fly away from a collision at all?
And AKAK, I understand that in some cases the Collider doesn't see the collision and the collidee see's it, a few seconds later the collider gets a collision message and gets damage.
But it has never happened to me, all collisions that I can remember that I have caused I saw it on my screen. So that leads me to believe in most cases the collider see's it most of the time, but not alwasy the collidee. So I still feel the collider who caused the collision is at fault and should go down. Also I see people apologize on 200 all the time for colliding, they know they did it, whether or not the collidee saw it on their end. That reinforces my view that the collider see's the collision on their end the majority of the time.
Collider = player causing the collision
Collidee = player receiving the collision
Hopper you are considering 2 aircraft on one PC. We have 4 aircraft with 2 aircraft each on 2 PCs. The collider/collidee is not relevant. The issue is that there is a collision on one PC but not on the other PC. On the PC with no collision there is no collider/collidee.
-
Use the same scenerio and you end up with oil damage, or a damaged gun. Which happens. Why should you be able to fly away from a collision at all?
And AKAK, I understand that in some cases the Collider doesn't see the collision and the collidee see's it, a few seconds later the collider gets a collision message and gets damage.
But it has never happened to me, all collisions that I can remember that I have caused I saw it on my screen. So that leads me to believe in most cases the collider see's it most of the time, but not alwasy the collidee. So I still feel the collider who caused the collision is at fault and should go down. Also I see people apologize on 200 all the time for colliding, they know they did it, whether or not the collidee saw it on their end. That reinforces my view that the collider see's the collision on their end the majority of the time.
Collider = player causing the collision
Collidee = player receiving the collision
Maybe it would be easier to understand if they used the correct words.
If a collision is DETECTED on your computer YOU get damage. At the same time due to differences in time and space due to the nature of the internet the other guys computer DID NOT DETECT a collision and so missed you, so he DOSE NOT receive damage.It is ALL on what YOUR computer DETECTS.
If the other guys computer DETECTS a collision and your computer dose not YOU will NOT get damage.
Easy right?
-
I totally understand, but with my experience with collisions in game that I have caused I saw it my computer, I caused the collision my computer detected it, whether or not the other players did is irrelevant to me. I am trying to assign fault, who caused it. I want at fault plane to go down. How to do it I don't know, so the player that detected(collidee) the collision I want to go down because I feel most of the time they are at fault. The only way to make sure that happens is for both to go down, but you guys are swaying me away from my stand on that for the most part. Understand?
Edit: I'm not trying to say it doesn't work, look at all my threads my beef is I want the at fault plane to go down. The collision model works well enough for me to say the guy who detects is the guy at fault, even though I know that is not always the case.
The game would be better for me if both planes went down if a collision is detected by whoever, but the game will probably not be better for most others if that was the case.
The problem I have is how do you get an oil hit when you collide with someone or a damaged gun? Just stupid to me, I want them to go down. Harsher concequences I hope would help with amount collisions.
-
I totally understand, but with my experience with collisions in game that I have caused I saw it my computer, I caused the collision my computer detected it, whether or not the other players did is irrelevant to me. I am trying to assign fault, who caused it. I want at fault plane to go down. How to do it I don't know, so the player that detected(collidee) the collision I want to go down because I feel most of the time they are at fault. The only way to make sure that happens is for both to go down, but you guys are swaying me away from my stand on that for the most part. Understand?
Edit: I'm not trying to say it doesn't work, look at all my threads my beef is I want the at fault plane to go down. The collision model works well enough for me to say the guy who detects is the guy at fault, even though I know that is not always the case.
The game would be better for me if both planes went down if a collision is detected by whoever, but the game will probably not be better for most others if that was the case.
The problem I have is how do you get an oil hit when you collide with someone or a damaged gun? Just stupid to me, I want them to go down. Harsher concequences I hope would help with amount collisions.
But how can it be his fault if he does not see the collision on his end?
-
Maybe it would be easier to understand if they used the correct words.
A dose of correct words like for instance, does :banana: :P
-
But how can it be his fault if he does not see the collision on his end?
What I think he is getting at is pretty much an example I gave earlier. 2 planes in close combat, 1 sees the other guy ram, the other sees a near miss.
-
I totally understand, but with my experience with collisions in game that I have caused I saw it my computer, I caused the collision my computer detected it, whether or not the other players did is irrelevant to me. I am trying to assign fault, who caused it. I want at fault plane to go down. How to do it I don't know, so the player that detected(collidee) the collision I want to go down because I feel most of the time they are at fault. The only way to make sure that happens is for both to go down, but you guys are swaying me away from my stand on that for the most part. Understand?
Edit: I'm not trying to say it doesn't work, look at all my threads my beef is I want the at fault plane to go down. The collision model works well enough for me to say the guy who detects is the guy at fault, even though I know that is not always the case.
The game would be better for me if both planes went down if a collision is detected by whoever, but the game will probably not be better for most others if that was the case.
The problem I have is how do you get an oil hit when you collide with someone or a damaged gun? Just stupid to me, I want them to go down. Harsher concequences I hope would help with amount collisions.
Oh we have that already! If you see/your computer detects a collision, IT'S YOUR FAULT! You didn't avoid it there for you take damage. Whats Skuzzy say....
And BOING!!!! another wish granted. WOOT!
-
Oh we have that already! If you see/your computer detects a collision, IT'S YOUR FAULT! You didn't avoid it there for you take damage. Whats Skuzzy say....
So he flies away with damaged oil? Not good enough for me.
-
But how can it be his fault if he does not see the collision on his end?
I know its not perfect but if you read it again grizz I explain that I think the at fault plane detects the collision the majority of the time, based on the collisions I have seen in game. So a minority of the time I get screwed, majority I'm happy.
-
wow this blame culture is alot more endemic than I'd realised.
-
I know its not perfect but if you read it again grizz I explain that I think the at fault plane detects the collision the majority of the time, based on the collisions I have seen in game. So a minority of the time I get screwed, majority I'm happy.
So with that, you should be happy with the current modeling.
-
So he flies away with damaged oil? Not good enough for me.
he flies away with an oil leak because before you slammed into him you shot a hole in his oil line, it had nothing to do with a collision because from his computer there was none. Your computer detected the collision, so you go down.
I know its not perfect but if you read it again grizz I explain that I think the at fault plane detects the collision the majority of the time, based on the collisions I have seen in game. So a minority of the time I get screwed, majority I'm happy.
There is NO FAULT in volved in the equation. It is simply the detection on each computer.
Senario...
Your on the runway and your engine is starting. As you do a quick glance around you see an LA diving on you. BANG! your in the tower and the system message says you have collided, and a second one that says so and so has killed you. Mean while, an LA driver from the other side of the world is vulching a field and see a plane spawn in and start his engine. He dives in and at 300 out starts firer and pulls out at the last second just missing the plane on the runway. As he starts his zoom up, he sees a system message you killed Hopper, and another saying Hopper collided with you.
It's not your fault, because you were just sitting on the runway, but your computer detected a collision so you die.
It's not his fault as all he did was shoot you up and ALMOST run into you.
If the the tables were turned and things were set like you want them, would you be happy to have your LA blow up on your zoom out and you end up in the tower?
-
So with that, you should be happy with the current modeling.
Nope I want the plane to go down, at present it doesn't always.
-
he flies away with an oil leak because before you slammed into him you shot a hole in his oil line, it had nothing to do with a collision because from his computer there was none. Your computer detected the collision, so you go down.
There is NO FAULT in volved in the equation. It is simply the detection on each computer.
Senario...
Your on the runway and your engine is starting. As you do a quick glance around you see an LA diving on you. BANG! your in the tower and the system message says you have collided, and a second one that says so and so has killed you. Mean while, an LA driver from the other side of the world is vulching a field and see a plane spawn in and start his engine. He dives in and at 300 out starts firer and pulls out at the last second just missing the plane on the runway. As he starts his zoom up, he sees a system message you killed Hopper, and another saying Hopper collided with you.
It's not your fault, because you were just sitting on the runway, but your computer detected a collision so you die.
It's not his fault as all he did was shoot you up and ALMOST run into you.
If the the tables were turned and things were set like you want them, would you be happy to have your LA blow up on your zoom out and you end up in the tower?
I totally understand Fugi and see your point, but this scenerio doesn't happen to me very often. The scenerio were a pony dives in on me while I'm turn fighting on the deck rams me and gets oil damage, or a damaged gun, or loses an elevator happens to me every day.
So yes I would be happy if that is they way it worked because the scenerio that happens more often would be set right.
-
Nope I want the plane to go down, at present it doesn't always.
Why, in RL both planes don't always go down http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2013219/Pilot-Rob-Davies-escapes-WW2-fighter-mid-air-collision-airshow.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2013219/Pilot-Rob-Davies-escapes-WW2-fighter-mid-air-collision-airshow.html)
-
22
OK TO THE ORIGINAL POSTER
A PIECE OF ADVICE BUD
STAY CLEAR OF OTHER AIRCRAFT AND YOU WONT COLLIDE
SIMPLE SOLUTION EH :)
I think this post says it all :) :rock
-
The new collision model will be implemented...
as soon as Skuzzy has mastered controlling interwebz lag.
That is all, carry on :salute
-
The amount of mental thickness displayed in this thread is epic.
It's very simple ...
If the 3D area of the plane/vehicle that YOU are in control of, on YOUR computer, DOES intersect with the 3d area of another "collideable" object ... YOU HAVE COLLIDED.
If the 3D area of the plane/vehicle that YOU are in control of, on YOUR computer, DOES NOT intersect with the 3d area of another "collideable" object ... YOU HAVE NOT COLLIDED.
All the people who have posted that if 1 plane see a collision, then both planes must go down ... they would be the first people back here to piss and moan that they were nowhere near another plane and then next thing they know, they are in the tower.
I would like to see HT introduce an array that would hold all the game ids for those that want the 1 person collides, both planes die.
Then when the code checks to see if there is no collision on their front end, but a collision is detected on the other front end and their gameid equals a gameid stored in the array .... BOOM ... to the tower with them.
I think this would be a simple change and would allow them to have what they think they want and leave the current logic alone for the rest of us sane people.
To get your gameid out the the array, you would have to post an apology on the BBS and plead on your virtual knees to get your gameid out of the array.
-
The amount of mental thickness displayed in this thread is epic.
It's very simple ...
If the 3D area of the plane/vehicle that YOU are in control of, on YOUR computer, DOES intersect with the 3d area of another "collideable" object ... YOU HAVE COLLIDED.
If the 3D area of the plane/vehicle that YOU are in control of, on YOUR computer, DOES NOT intersect with the 3d area of another "collideable" object ... YOU HAVE NOT COLLIDED.
All the people who have posted that if 1 plane see a collision, then both planes must go down ... they would be the first people back here to piss and moan that they were nowhere near another plane and then next thing they know, they are in the tower.
I would like to see HT introduce an array that would hold all the game ids for those that want the 1 person collides, both planes die.
Then when the code checks to see if there is no collision on their front end, but a collision is detected on the other front end and their gameid equals a gameid stored in the array .... BOOM ... to the tower with them.
I think this would be a simple change and would allow them to have what they think they want and leave the current logic alone for the rest of us sane people.
To get your gameid out the the array, you would have to post an apology on the BBS and plead on your virtual knees to get your gameid out of the array.
After 17 years I have finally heard of a new collision idea that I like. :D
HiTech
-
[a most excellent idea]
:lol :aok
-
Can we get an array for the people that want it off? :lol
The problem with the collisions is not the how they work in theory. It is how they work in practice. In theory, if you don't see a collision you don't collide, you avoid the other guy and everyone is happy. In practice there are warps, mini warps, stutters, low FPS etc. Some caused by you, some caused by the other guy, some caused by the inet. Some are random, some happen when you fire your guns, some when buffs fire, engine smoke, who knows. Sometimes it is totally random. So, even though in theory it is very simple (u dont see it, u don;t collide), in practice it is a little bit different and you do not have the control people think they have over them. Throw in the funny damage you get (missing tail wheel and PW for example) and you can see why people complain.
Now, last I checked, the fact that you could collide has not stopped any of the HOers from flying into me. It also, has not stopped any of the dog fighters from getting too close in a fight and colliding. Nor did I notice less cherry picking because someone was worried about colliding. So, what is the point of having them on then? The only use I see is to protect buffs (and that is its own argument thread right there lol). Other than that - in practice - they serve as another way to stop a fight.
In theory though, yes, great idea to have them on.
-
Now, last I checked, the fact that you could collide has not stopped any of the HOers from flying into me.
So your saying you never try to avoid a collision?
HiTech
-
So your saying you never try to avoid a collision?
HiTech
lol, of coarse I do. So if we assume that I have any kind of control over my airplane, I should be avoiding them easily right? Therefore, we can conclude that when I do collide it is mainly due to the following (since I always do my best to avoid them).
1) I made a mistake and collided.
2) I have no idea what happened because even though my FE did see a collision, I either never saw the guy that crossed my path, he warped into me, I was involved in a fight with multiple cons, I had no speed to avoid, etc. I had no control of the situation.
So now the question is, how much control do I have over my plane? I know the fun club will say 0 but seriously (and ask people that have fought me), I do everything I can not to be in a collision situation out of respect of the other guys time. You can pick and choose what percentage of the collisions are my fault to fit what ever conclusions you want to reach. But I know me, and I have been playing long enough to understand what is happening. So, 20% my fault 80% never saw it coming or was unable to do anything about it.
Also keep in mind the playing stile of the people explaining how collisions work. Most of them I have never found in a fight so their reality may be what they are explaining.
But hey, I can start responding like you also. Are you saying that collisions are always avoidable?
-
Dedalos you probably don't attempt to avoid a collision until it is too late, which is why you feel you don't have control in a lot of situations.
-
Dedalos you probably don't attempt to avoid a collision until it is too late, which is why you feel you don't have control in a lot of situations.
So, this is what you get out of me saying that I did not see the bad guy, warped into me, was too slow to do anything about it etc? :lol You are still treating this as if I think it is a bug or I don;t understand how collisions work.
-
So, this is what you get out of me saying that I did not see the bad guy, warped into me, was too slow to do anything about it etc? :lol You are still treating this as if I think it is a bug or I don;t understand how collisions work.
The only guys that warp into you in this game are joeblack and greens.
-
When you really see other planes warp into your plane all the time.... it's you ;)
-
The only guys that warp into you in this game are joeblack and greens.
:lol
-
When you really see other planes warp into your plane all the time.... it's you ;)
I agree, but what does that statement have to do with what I wrote? Remember if some A = B and some B = C, it does not mean that all A = C ;)
-
But hey, I can start responding like you also (he's talking to HiTech). Are you saying that collisions are always avoidable? (an example of Muzik's point in a prior thread and dedalos is not on the list that Muzik requested of me)
Dedalos has a new nickname...
(http://i909.photobucket.com/albums/ac300/Changeup1/Luckyslastphoto.jpg)
-
Dedalos has a new nickname...
(http://i909.photobucket.com/albums/ac300/Changeup1/Luckyslastphoto.jpg)
:headscratch:
-
After 17 years I have finally heard of a new collision idea that I like. :D
HiTech
Do it !!! ... :pray ... it would take what ? ... 15 minutes to coad while sipping coffee casually ?
-
Do it !!! ... :pray ... it would take what ? ... 15 minutes to coad while sipping coffee casually ?
Probably not a good business move to show some of his customers how "silly" they are being. (Silly is a BBS-friendly descriptor)
-
So, 20% my fault 80% never saw it coming or was unable to do anything about it.
My experiences for the past ten years ... 90% my fault ... 10% never saw it coming or was unable to do anything about it.
The amount of times I actually collide in 1 year does not even rate enough to even think about getting all frothy in the mouth about it and if I was colliding to the point to cause frothing of the mouth ... then I would need to find a new game, because my suckage at this game is probably something that I most likely could never recover from ... I would most likely be ... doomed to eternal suckage.
-
Probably not a good business move to show some of his customers how "silly" they are being. (Silly is a BBS-friendly descriptor)
But it's giving them exactly what they asked for. How is that not good customer service? ;) I liked the idea better when he proposed a $50 fee each to turn it back to the way it is currently. That seems fair for the amount of messing around on HT's part it would take, and could provide an additional revenue stream.
Wiley.
-
Probably not a good business move to show some of his customers how "silly" they are being. (Silly is a BBS-friendly descriptor)
I would think that it would fall into the category of ... give the customer what they want or the customer is always right ... :rofl
If they did feel "silly" (Silly is a BBS-friendly descriptor) ... then they have no one to blame but themselves.
-
My own personal opinion on collisions is that for ity to occure it shoudl show up as a collision on both ends.
In other words if both sides see a collision then they collided. if only one side sees it then no collision occurred.
I seem to remember HT explaining why this cant or shouldnt be a couple of years ago. And the explanation seemed reasonable.
But still it does only seem fair particularly when I collide with someone behind me while going forward LOL
What if neither sees a collission but they actually did collide?
-
What if neither sees a collission but they actually did collide?
...Are you proposing the game utilize the 'Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal' method of collision detection?
Interesting idea. :)
Wiley.
-
What if neither sees a collission but they actually did collide?
You will hear the sound of a fallen tree? ... :confused:
-
But it's giving them exactly what they asked for. How is that not good customer service? ;) I liked the idea better when he proposed a $50 fee each to turn it back to the way it is currently. That seems fair for the amount of messing around on HT's part it would take, and could provide an additional revenue stream.
Wiley.
Technically it is not because if they collided with their opponent on their end they would go down but if he avoided it on his end he would not go down, so they would still not be getting their way.
-
When you really see other planes warp into your plane all the time.... it's you ;)
... unless its bomber drones and the lead buff just bailed. thats really annoying. :bhead
-
I want at fault plane to go down.
There is no "at fault" plane.
This is where you need to pay closer attention to the effects of lag and how the collision model is set up. If you think you can assign blame, than you don't understand the effects of lag very well.
First of all (due to the effects of lag) WHAT YOU SEE IS NOT WHAT THE OTHER GUY SEES.
That means that whoever is at fault on your screen may very well not be at fault on their own screen (if there was even a collision on their end; if there wasn't even a collision on their screen, how could there be an "at fault plane?).
Lag is cumulative between players, so if you're experiencing a 125ms lag and so is your opponent, you're seeing what his airplane does (and where it is) 1/4 second later than it happened. In 1/4 second his plane will travel over 100 feet at 300mph. What he sees and what you see are very different.
You are experiencing two different realities, so it would be unreasonable to expect both of you to see the same thing and have those separate realities agree that something happened at the same time and place in both realities...
You could see him hit your belly, while he sees you hit his tail. In both cases, it's the other guys "fault".
The computers cannot even agree that an airplane is in the same place at the same time, so how could they possibly refine those positions enough to be able to place blame in a situation where tiny fractions of a second matter an immense amount??
Even if they somehow could, you'd need to write a "rules of the road" to decide which plane is at fault in various situations. It isn't as simple as deciding who hit who...
Who's at fault in these situations? (I'm not asking which plane should take damage, I'm asking who's at fault).
-You're on auto-climb (an maybe even afk). You're flying a completely predictable path at a stable speed. I dive down and pass just in front of you. As I pass by, your prop hits my belly. Technically, you hit me... Are you at fault?
-I'm in your path and have enough speed to maneuver, while you're too slow to change heading but are still coming toward me. I could get out of your way, but don't (maybe I choose not to?)... You hit me again.
-You're on auto-climb again... I dive on you, and on your screen you see me pass cleanly 50ft in front of you. On my screen, you clip my tail with your prop... Oops, you hit me again!
-You're turning on the deck with a squadie of mine. I cannot get into position for a shot on you, but manage (accidentally; I'm a terrible pilot) to pass in front of you so that you hit me from the side...
Who has the "right of way"? What are the rules of the road? What if we see the same thing, but cannot agree on who's at fault? What if we agree that we saw the exact same thing but in reality we didn't?
-
The scenerio were a pony dives in on me while I'm turn fighting on the deck rams me and gets oil damage, or a damaged gun, or loses an elevator happens to me every day.
With this type of frequency, I imagine it would be easy to get it on film?
I'd like to see it personally, as I cannot for the life of me remember it happening to me frequently enough to get it on film (let alone on a daily basis).
Who's at fault in these situations? Is it possible that as he comes in he has so much speed that he cannot turn to avoid the collision? If so, would it be your responsibility to recognize his path and divert to avoid intersecting it? Or do you have the "right of way"?
-
Who's at fault in these situations? Is it possible that as he comes in he has so much speed that he cannot turn to avoid the collision? If so, would it be your responsibility to recognize his path and divert to avoid intersecting it? Or do you have the "right of way"?
You have just proven his argument for him.
-
What if neither sees a collission but they actually did collide?
There is a long time player that was recently under that impression. He thought that "if front end sees the collision" meant that he had to physically see the collision for it to happen. I think FBZodiac finally set DES straight but we all had a good laugh, except DES.
ack-ack
-
You have just proven his argument for him.
No, not really. I put that in there as a trap of sorts to see if he'd read any of the rest.
Of course the answer I expect (which appears to be the one you expect as well) is that he feels he would have the "right of way" in a situation like that so would therefore be "wronged" if someone came in and involved him in a collision (making the person diving in responsible or "at fault").
That's just silliness, of course. If it were a RL situation an attitude like that would get him killed! In a situation like that he would of course need to protect himself first and foremost, even if he was already engaged.
First of all, he's fighting someone who's potentially "being rescued" by the person he's about to be involved in the collision with. The guy coming in should be expected, and should be watched for. Shooting the guy in front of you is a poor excuse for getting shot by the guy behind you...
Second, diving in faster is going to make the other guy less maneuverable, just as being extra slow would make someone less maneuverable. It should be expected that someone diving in with excess speed will not be able to divert much from their path (at least not quickly or suddenly) if they're fast (and if they're not fast they have enough control, forethought, and likely skill, to be a low collision risk anyway). That's a predictable situation, and it shouldn't shock or surprise anyone.
Third, it's a basic, known requirement that to be successful you need to avoid collisions with enemy aircraft, and the landscape. It doesn't matter one bit what type of aircraft it is, it's speed, altitude, heading, or intent. It's YOUR responsibility to act to preserve YOURSELF; it's not your opponents responsibility to make sure that you don't get damaged.
Fourth, regardless of the situation lag will be a factor, so your opponent won't be exactly where he appears, and he won't see things exactly as you do. That doesn't change just because you're flying a spit, or because you're low and turning while he's fast and diving in. He may fly past you collision-free on his end (having successfully avoided colliding with HIS opponents) while you take damage because you weren't able to successfully avoid colliding with YOURS. It's not HIS fault you couldn't or wouldn't protect yourself (or that you never recognized the threat).
Fifth, whether it looks (on your end) like you collided with the other guy, or whether it looks like he collided with you, there's almost no chance in the world that the situation and timing looked identical on his end. Even if it looks like the other guy dove down and flew right through you, it probably didn't look like that on his end... Even if both pilots see the same collision, it's unlikely that they'll see it identically. You saw me hit your tail, I saw you hit my belly... Neither is at fault, but both are at fault? Both cases may be true, but neither is possible if the other is true.
Sixth, identifying "fault" is a very vague concept... What if the pilot diving in flies a very safe path (no threat of a collision, although he'll pass very near his opponent), but with enough speed that he's pretty locked into maintaining course and zooming on through. Then, at the last second the lower/slower guy changes heading and diverts right into the path of the guy diving in. The guy diving in hits the slower plane, but only because the lower guy diverted his path and placed himself in danger (not necessarily on purpose either; maybe a stall dropped a wing suddenly, etc). Who's at fault? Not the fast guy with the stable, predictable flightpath, but also not necessarily the guy who diverted into his path.
When it comes to collisions between opponents, the only real way to lay blame is to have a "right of way" rule that says that one player has a higher "right" to a location in space (and time) than the other. It would need to be a set of "rules" very similar to traffic rules where everyone is trained to know who has the right of way and who is required to yield... And of course that wouldn't work in a situation where we're shooting at each other... Would it be the high guy that must yield to the low guy? Or the slow guy? Or the guy on the right? Or the guy in the xyz plane? Or the guy pointing closest to due north? Must the more maneuverable guy yield to the less maneuverable?
If nobody has the right of way, then nobody is required to yield. So who's at fault?
In the end, you really cannot assign fault. If I dive past you (but miss you cleanly on my end) how can it be my "fault" if you see a collision and die on your end? I flew fine and succeeded in avoiding a collision (even if I was fast and you were slow); you didn't.
-
mtnman:I agree with you,I got you and hoppers arguments backwards for a sec, Thought hopper made first long post about no fault, not you.
HiTech
-
There is no "at fault" plane.
Thats not what the cartoon plane insurance co said.... :bolt:
-
There is a long time player that was recently under that impression. He thought that "if front end sees the collision" meant that he had to physically see the collision for it to happen. I think FBZodiac finally set DES straight but we all had a good laugh, except DES.
ack-ack
Hey, when I first heard ... "If you don't see a collision on your front end, then you will not collide" ... I use to shut my eyes thinking that if I didn't see the collision ... then I will not collide ... not true ... they lied to me ... :mad:
:x
-
"He didn't hit me on my front end. He rammed me from behind." :devil
-
http://www.mediafire.com/?rvh3282i74hve5x
saturday night I rammed a buff got away with a missing aerleron and landed 5 or 6 kills. I should have been dead.
I plan on going to the DA and ramming people in the lake to get more evidence.
Also my theory is the plane that "caused" the collision is the plane going at higher rate of speed, I'll work on that also.
-
There is no "at fault" plane.
-You're on auto-climb (an maybe even afk). You're flying a completely predictable path at a stable speed. I dive down and pass just in front of you. As I pass by, your prop hits my belly. Technically, you hit me... Are you at fault?
-I'm in your path and have enough speed to maneuver, while you're too slow to change heading but are still coming toward me. I could get out of your way, but don't (maybe I choose not to?)... You hit me again.
-You're on auto-climb again... I dive on you, and on your screen you see me pass cleanly 50ft in front of you. On my screen, you clip my tail with your prop... Oops, you hit me again!
-You're turning on the deck with a squadie of mine. I cannot get into position for a shot on you, but manage (accidentally; I'm a terrible pilot) to pass in front of you so that you hit me from the side...
Who has the "right of way"? What are the rules of the road? What if we see the same thing, but cannot agree on who's at fault? What if we agree that we saw the exact same thing but in reality we didn't?
For most of these you can refer to my post above for explanation
#1 your at fault
#2 your at fault
#3 your at fault
#4 your at fault
Statement at the end (in my perfect aces high both planes go down because of a collision, I know I won't get that so I won't argue to that point.)
I'm not going to lie I have a dog in the fight, example #4 is were I find myself most of the time. Except that the at fault plane collides with me but manages to get guns on and I die because he has a percentage of a chance to still ram me and fly away with the kill. If that percentage was 0%, do you think he would still try as hard to get guns on or save himself? I am hoping more people will realize they will die if they collide and try again for a better angle.
-
http://www.mediafire.com/?rvh3282i74hve5x
saturday night I rammed a buff got away with a missing aerleron and landed 5 or 6 kills. I should have been dead.
I plan on going to the DA and ramming people in the lake to get more evidence.
Also my theory is the plane that "caused" the collision is the plane going at higher rate of speed, I'll work on that also.
There is no collision message in that film.
-
There is no collision message in that film.
They don't always show up in the AHFilm.
The left wing definately hits the B25, slowing the film down helps.
-
They don't always show up in the AHFilm.
"You have collided" always shows up (white)
"XYZ has collided with you" never does.
So if there is no collision message in film, you didn't take damage as there was none on your FE.
-
"You have collided" always shows up (white)
"XYZ has collided with you" never does.
So if there is no collision message in film, you didn't take damage as there was none on your FE.
Sorry snail it definately does not 'always show up'
Regardless the 262's left wing went through the right drones, left engine. The evidence is sat right here in this film... :rolleyes:
-
"You have collided" always shows up (white)
"XYZ has collided with you" never does.
So if there is no collision message in film, you didn't take damage as there was none on your FE.
I just checked the original film and the message is not there either. But I do remember it when it happened. But thats ok thats my first time flying in a few days I'll have more films this week if I have time.
-
"You have collided" always shows up (white)
"XYZ has collided with you" never does.
So if there is no collision message in film, you didn't take damage as there was none on your FE.
next time i'll back it up with a screen shot just for you lusche
-
"You have collided" always shows up (white)
"XYZ has collided with you" never does.
So if there is no collision message in film, you didn't take damage as there was none on your FE.
It's the other way around.
"XYZ has collided with you" (white) always shows up on fim.
"You have collided" (orange) does not show up on film.
wrongway
-
It's the other way around.
"XYZ has collided with you" (white) always shows up on fim.
"You have collided" (orange) does not show up on film.
wrongway
Mmmm I don't think those colors are right.
-
They don't always show up in the AHFilm.
The left wing definately hits the B25, slowing the film down helps.
I saw the hit, I was just commenting on the lack of message.
The actual complaint seems to be that the collision caused insufficient damage in hopper's opinion.
-
(http://discoveringalcoholic.com/files/images/deadhorsebeating.gif)
-
My experiences for the past ten years ... 90% my fault ... 10% never saw it coming or was unable to do anything about it.
And that is half the problem right there. What you write applies to you and your experiences the same as what I write applies to me and my experiences. These threads get out of hand because people fail to realize that their experiences/opinions/etc may not necessarily apply to others. You do realize that it cannot be 90% everyone fault right? I mean, if I was fighting you all the time and 90% of the times we collided it was your fault, that would only leave only 10% for me right?
The amount of times I actually collide in 1 year does not even rate enough to even think about getting all frothy in the mouth about it and if I was colliding to the point to cause frothing of the mouth ... then I would need to find a new game, because my suckage at this game is probably something that I most likely could never recover from ... I would most likely be ... doomed to eternal suckage.
And this is the other half of the problem (and since it a response to me, I am talking about my self here). No one is frothing at the mouth and no one has a problem with suckage. In case you guys have not noticed, this is a discussion board. The only frothing I see is on the responses of the fun club and people responding with one liners to anyone that does not agree with the collisions.
If everyone kept it clean, there would not be any frothing, but no one does and some are encouraged to do so depending on what side of the argument they are on. So, I don;t remember saying that I collide all the time, or that I warp all the time, or that I see warps all the time, or any of the garbage posted here and on other threads. I stated my opinion and what I think the facts are for when I do collide in a collision discussion thread. The rest is added in order to discredit posters. But hey, you guys feel free to twist everything any way you like so you can get your point across.
-
System "Dedalos has just collided with himself" :neener:
:D
-
And that is half the problem right there. What you write applies to you and your experiences the same as what I write applies to me and my experiences. These threads get out of hand because people fail to realize that their experiences/opinions/etc may not necessarily apply to others. You do realize that it cannot be 90% everyone fault right? I mean, if I was fighting you all the time and 90% of the times we collided it was your fault, that would only leave only 10% for me right?
I still wonder if you understand the system.
Your statement above still has the thought process "WE" collide. Because it should be stated I collide not WE.
It is not only possible but likely probable that 90% of collisions are the the persons who was damaged in a collision fault.
HiTech
-
I still wonder if you understand the system.
Your statement above still has the thought process "WE" collide. Because it should be stated I collide not WE.
You have to see it as a response to SlapShot and not as an explanation of how the system works. He stated that 90% of the time it is his fault so I said that in that case, when we collide, it will be my fault only 10% of the time. Yes, the use of "we" was used incorrectly since it indicates that my FE also saw a collision or that he is only talking about his FE, etc (we can play with words all day), but you have to see it for what it was. A joking response to slapshot and not an attempt to explain the model.
It is not only possible but likely probable that 90% of collisions are the the persons who was damaged in a collision fault.
HiTech
I agree on that. Probably the truth for a lot of people. But I would add that there are those people that this is not true for. Could it be depended on stile of play? For example, if one spends their time making high speed passes using a 262 or P51 maybe what you said is close to 100% true (and the famous pic they always post to explain collisions is very valid ). But maybe there are those other cases where you are involved in a fight with several cons and collisions are caused by the reasons and actions that I described? And if you are in that other category you see is this game ending collision that 90% of the time you could not do anything about? If that is the case, then the real question is how many people are in each category, what category the game caters to, what category produces the highest income etc. I understand it is a business, but that does not make my point invalid.
-
Mmmm I don't think those colors are right.
Yea they are
-
You do realize that it cannot be 90% everyone fault right?
Sure it can ... If you and I have 10 fights and 9 of those fights, we fly straight at each other and do not try to avoid the collision ... then we are both at fault and both have racked up a 90 percentile ownership for the collisions.
My choices have no bearing on your choices.
-
Sure it can ... If you and I have 10 fights and 9 of those fights, we fly straight at each other and do not try to avoid the collision ... then we are both at fault and both have racked up a 90 percentile ownership for the collisions.
My choices have no bearing on your choices.
:furious Ha! You messed up old one. That is 100% of the collisions (Not 90%) :old: and 100% of the fights that you got shot down :rofl
-
For most of these you can refer to my post above for explanation
#1 your at fault
#2 your at fault
#3 your at fault
#4 your at fault
Statement at the end (in my perfect aces high both planes go down because of a collision, I know I won't get that so I won't argue to that point.)
I'm not going to lie I have a dog in the fight, example #4 is were I find myself most of the time. Except that the at fault plane collides with me but manages to get guns on and I die because he has a percentage of a chance to still ram me and fly away with the kill. If that percentage was 0%, do you think he would still try as hard to get guns on or save himself? I am hoping more people will realize they will die if they collide and try again for a better angle.
Do you have a reasoning behind that? It honestly just looks like you want to blame the other pilot, regardless of the situation.
It especially looks that way because in these instances I could have easily not been in a collision at all, where you were. How could it be my fault if I didn't collide?
The one thing I do see though is that you don't want to necessarily blame the guy who gets hit, but blame the guy who rammed into the other guy. Do you base this on who you think got in the way? In other words, it's not your fault you hit the other guy, because he got in your way?
In all of those cases where you stated it was my fault, your propeller hit me (essentially, you rammed me). But you consider yourself faultless?
Do you take that a step further, and say that the guy who flies into you isn't at fault, because you may have gotten in his way?
What criteria do you use to place blame? Is it a simple "formula" that could be coded? Or does it require a judge/jury to weigh out each scenario?
-
Mmmm I don't think those colors are right.
Yea they are
Yeah. I was watching collision films just to confirm.
What happened to the "plane collides with a vehicle" that was in a thread somewhere?
I have a film where I lose a wing to an LVT I collide with. :banana:
I also have a screen shot of the "XYZ has collided with you" while I am in a whirblewind.
wrongway
-
I still wonder if you understand the system.
Your statement above still has the thought process "WE" collide. Because it should be stated I collide not WE.
It is not only possible but likely probable that 90% of collisions are the the persons who was damaged in a collision fault.
HiTech
i think 90% of the collisions happen to people with bad latency, which the current modelling system does not protect or cater to. You have bad latency... you take the damage and die...
-
i think 90% of the collisions happen to people with bad latency, which the current modelling system does not protect or cater to. You have bad latency... you take the damage and die...
The degree of latency has nothing to do with it. You are empowered with absolute control over intersecting with another object in the game. You avoid it, you never intersect, you do not avoid it, then you intersect.
All latency does is impact the difference between what you see and what the other player sees on the respective computers. The amount of latency is irrelevant in terms of you avoiding the intersection.
-
The degree of latency has nothing to do with it. You are empowered with absolute control over intersecting with another object in the game. You avoid it, you never intersect, you do not avoid it, then you intersect.
All latency does is impact the difference between what you see and what the other player sees on the respective computers. The amount of latency is irrelevant in terms of you avoiding the intersection.
sure... you tend to forget... you may on 1 hand want to avoid the intersections...on the other hand the other party does not. to him he wanted to ho.. and whatever his reason is.... and then depending on latency the slow latency might get you a collision and not the other party... i wish all accidents you indicated are as simple as you think it is... not all accidents are totally avoidable.
-
... and then depending on latency the slow latency might get you a collision and not the other party...
It doesn't work that way.
-
sure... you tend to forget... you may on 1 hand want to avoid the intersections...on the other hand the other party does not. to him he wanted to ho.. and whatever his reason is.... and then depending on latency the slow latency might get you a collision and not the other party... i wish all accidents you indicated are as simple as you think it is... not all accidents are totally avoidable.
Once again, you have absolute control over whether or not you intersect another object. If you avoid it, you will NEVER intersect with another object. It does not matter what happens on the other players computer, or what he/she is doing.
If you avoid the intersection with another object, you do not take damage.
-
Once again, you have absolute control over whether or not you intersect another object. If you avoid it, you will NEVER intersect with another object. It does not matter what happens on the other players computer, or what he/she is doing.
If you avoid the intersection with another object, you do not take damage.
This sounds like Middle School geometry to me.
Too easy.
-
:furious Ha! You messed up old one. That is 100% of the collisions (Not 90%) :old: and 100% of the fights that you got shot down :rofl
Right ... 100% of the collisions, but 90% of the sorties flown resulted in a collision ... and you augured in on the 10th fight cause you had the stall limiter on cause your such a noob ... nice try young one.
-
Right ... 100% of the collisions, but 90% of the sorties flown resulted in a collision ... and you augured in on the 10th fight cause you had the stall limiter on cause your such a noob ... nice try young one.
:rofl
-
I had a funny collision the other day in a P-51 where the only damage I took was the losing of a gun. I think most peeps get confused about the difference between "real" world & the "virtual" world. We are not flying in a point A to Point B universe. We have mini-hiccups at times that distort the positions in space between 2 virtual aircraft & while 1 aircraft may see space between them the other sees them sharing the same geometric point if even for an instance. I'm sure even the best fighter jocks in here have gotten collision message while going into a canopy to canopy dogfight. It's just a game. Just re-up & give it another go.
-
It's just a game. Just re-up & give it another go.
Words of wisdom ... this guy gets it.
-
Once again, you have absolute control over whether or not you intersect another object. If you avoid it, you will NEVER intersect with another object. It does not matter what happens on the other players computer, or what he/she is doing.
If you avoid the intersection with another object, you do not take damage.
tell you what...give me missiles and i won't have to merge and intersect with anyone to dogfight... cos i dun want to get the collision..
-
Learn to fly better and you won't get collisions.
-
I've never had a collision that wasn't my fault and could have been avoided had I not been dumb or overly aggressive. To all of you complaining about the collision model... neither have you.
-
I've never had a collision that wasn't my fault and could have been avoided had I not been dumb or overly aggressive. To all of you complaining about the collision model... neither have you.
You can collide in WoW? :O
-
Right ... 100% of the collisions, but 90% of the sorties flown resulted in a collision ... and you augured in on the 10th fight cause you had the stall limiter on cause your such a noob ... nice try young one.
Heh, if you were not flying that big old Buick of yours out of the driveway at 120mph and then fly down the street at 10mph with the blinker on, 90% of the collisions would have been avoided :old:
-
You can collide in WoW? :O
WoW? Phhbbbbt.... Star Wars: The Old Republic. Get with the times, man.
-
I can see how a lot of folks think it is out of their control, since they have no control over a fight, because they have not spent the time to learn exactly what is going on in a fight. The more you engage in close combat, aka, in the dueling arena with other like-minded individuals, you can easily predict how the fight is going to develop and where these toon planes are going to intersect, and thus consequently, avoid it. If you are too lazy/indifferent to go the extra mile to become better, then you will simply be a victim of the collision scenarios that randomly develop on their own, since you are doing nothing to prevent them from happening.
my 2 cents.
-
This is the situation that probably puzzles and bothers most...
you may actually be trying to get out of the way or the other turn rolls into you (on their end they may or may not be in the clear for a collision)... so you take a collision that doesn't seem like it's totally your fault and the other guy flies off w/o damage...
or more clearly... lets say we have two planes flying mostly paralell to each other separated by say, 10-50 yds maybe... then the other simply does an aileron roll into you and you lose your entire wing while he flies off with a missing aileron or no damage...
was there anything you could have done? maybe. but you didn't do anything, either...
this is where many get hung up... i just say nice ram and move on. :aok
-
I can see how a lot of folks think it is out of their control, since they have no control over a fight, because they have not spent the time to learn exactly what is going on in a fight. The more you engage in close combat, aka, in the dueling arena with other like-minded individuals, you can easily predict how the fight is going to develop and where these toon planes are going to intersect, and thus consequently, avoid it. If you are too lazy/indifferent to go the extra mile to become better, then you will simply be a victim of the collision scenarios that randomly develop on their own, since you are doing nothing to prevent them from happening.
my 2 cents.
i think you would end up in that kind of DA dogfight eventually no matter how good you are seeing the hordes that we have... if not your only tactic for everyone would be to bnz and nothing more.. if so... space flight will soon be part of AH... i think it takes 2 hands to clap... but if 1 hand seriously wants to clap.. it will find a way to smack something to create that clap... you are not fighting someone as skilled as yourself...everyone has his/ her own way for fighting... how could you condemn them to be lazy or not trying to better themselves when its the system that is failing not the person?
my 2 cents
-
i think you would end up in that kind of DA dogfight eventually no matter how good you are seeing the hordes that we have... if not your only tactic for everyone would be to bnz and nothing more.. if so... space flight will soon be part of AH... i think it takes 2 hands to clap... but if 1 hand seriously wants to clap.. it will find a way to smack something to create that clap... you are not fighting someone as skilled as yourself...everyone has his/ her own way for fighting... how could you condemn them to be lazy or not trying to better themselves when its the system that is failing not the person?
my 2 cents
No I do not understand this at all.
A pilot is in complete control of what plane to choose, his fighting style, and his environment.
-
No I do not understand this at all.
A pilot is in complete control of what plane to choose, his fighting style, and his environment.
you are in control i'm sure...sad thing is the other guy isn't... and your fighting style would differ from someone else's.... and to say that you are in full control of collision is totally ridiculous to me... to totally prevent it... is to not merge at all or intersect as skuzzy says which is why i asked to give us missiles...
a couple of sidewinders would do nicely against grizz in his 262.. :D
-
<snip>.... and to say that you are in full control of collision is totally ridiculous to me... <snip>
You are aware you are the only one flying your plane? Hence, you are in full control of whether or not your plane intersects with another one. Are there situations where you cannot avoid it? Sure, but that does not mean you are not the one in control of it.
-
You are aware you are the only one flying your plane? Hence, you are in full control of whether or not your plane intersects with another one. Are there situations where you cannot avoid it? Sure, but that does not mean you are not the one in control of it.
maybe i need to head over to the training arena to learn how not to intersect with another plane to shoot him down... it seems the only way to do that may eventually be BnZing i suppose... if not most fights would have to have a merge and therefore intersect each other... you may have control of your plane but the other doesn't.. and it seems everytime i try to avoid a head on.. i open myself up to ho shot..
-
You are confusing flight path intersection with aircraft collision. The TA is probably a good idea though.
-
You show your lack of knowledge right there. Why would you fly on front of the other guys guns? You are in control of your plane, and in his gun site is the worst place to be. There are much better positions to ne in to kill the other guy.
-
You show your lack of knowledge right there. Why would you fly on front of the other guys guns? You are in control of your plane, and in his gun site is the worst place to be. There are much better positions to ne in to kill the other guy.
do impart your knowledge on how to kill the other guy without intersecting the other party...
-
^
You are confusing flight path intersection with aircraft collision.
-
This has gone plum funny :rofl
Some will always blame someone else or the system. Trying to explain anything to them is like this......... :bhead
-
do impart your knowledge on how to kill the other guy without intersecting the other party...
Quite simple. I do it often. Come in from the side or above, he breaks to one side or the other and a bit low, point where he is going to be, shoot him, pull off high, my flight path never intersects his.
Wiley.
-
i think you would end up in that kind of DA dogfight eventually no matter how good you are seeing the hordes that we have... if not your only tactic for everyone would be to bnz and nothing more.. if so... space flight will soon be part of AH... i think it takes 2 hands to clap... but if 1 hand seriously wants to clap.. it will find a way to smack something to create that clap... you are not fighting someone as skilled as yourself...everyone has his/ her own way for fighting... how could you condemn them to be lazy or not trying to better themselves when its the system that is failing not the person?
my 2 cents
How can it be the system if every collision I get myself in to could have been avoided? Usually it's over aggressiveness on my part.
-
I come to this discussion late and admit ignorance to the content of the entire thread, but there are a couple of things that I wish to add in my good friend Des' defence. There is a good possibility that lag or differences in connection may play into what occurs on the front end of his computer compared to what one of us might be accustomed to.
Des, I believe, maybe one of us that is on the unfortunate end of the spectrum when it comes to lag. Des, I forget where you are located or if this is an accurate assumption. But from someone who has had horrible connection and lag, I can tell you that it is not all that simple because, your eyes tell you what is true to connect with your target (gun solution or actually landing) while your actual target might be moving in a position that is not true to your eyes.
What I am saying (from experience) and from film evidence of other players, I have made my evasive turn or climb in the window to avoid the other players gun solution according to all of my visual cues, but in fact on his end I continued on the additional split second or so and thus did end in his path. One of the tell tale clues that I have experienced lag, either comes from an unexpected collision, or the all too familiar sound of rounds raking over my aircraft a good second or so after the merge.
Yes, the only way that I can receive damage from an aircraft past me and facing away with out rear guns HAS TO BE LAG. Please discuss the above and consider that into your advice for my good buddy, and an extremely fun fellow to fly with Des.
-
How can it be the system if every collision I get myself in to could have been avoided? Usually it's over aggressiveness on my part.
I know it won't make a difference but it may help someone else. Picture this simple scenario. I am D100 on your tail and ready to fire. However, you employ the 190s best move of stick steering and fish flopping causing a warp that causes me to collide with you. I go down and you fly away untouched or with tail wheel damage. Care to tell me how it was my fault and how could I have avoided you warping into me?
This could be entertaining to see how this simple scenario gets twisted around :lol
-
I know it won't make a difference but it may help someone else. Picture this simple scenario. I am D100 on your tail and ready to fire. However, you employ the 190s best move of stick steering and fish flopping causing a warp that causes me to collide with you. I go down and you fly away untouched or with tail wheel damage. Care to tell me how it was my fault and how could I have avoided you warping into me?
This could be entertaining to see how this simple scenario gets twisted around :lol
If you close to 100 in an online aircraft game your too close. At 300 to 400 mph it's a split second with no warp.
-
If you close to 100 in an online aircraft game your too close. At 300 to 400 mph it's a split second with no warp.
:rofl As I said. It would be entertaining. Keep going, I have my boots on :rofl
-
It is irrelevant as to how you could have avoided it.
You did not avoid it so you took damage.
-
I know it won't make a difference but it may help someone else. Picture this simple scenario. I am D100 on your tail and ready to fire. However, you employ the 190s best move of stick steering and fish flopping causing a warp that causes me to collide with you. I go down and you fly away untouched or with tail wheel damage. Care to tell me how it was my fault and how could I have avoided you warping into me?
This could be entertaining to see how this simple scenario gets twisted around :lol
Of course in that scenario it was your fault. If you are going to engage in close quarter combat of less than 50 yards you can't dismiss the chance of a collision. The closer you engage the enemy the higher probability there will be a collision. How is that different from real life or anything else in life? Just like if you tailgate someone and he slams on his brakes and you crash into him. You can whine and whine that he slammed on his brakes but the fact of the matter is, you were wayy too close for safety.
Seriously, if you are looking for gun solutions at 50 yards or less instead of breaking off and trying again, you are just asking to crash in to the guy.
-
I know it won't make a difference but it may help someone else. Picture this simple scenario. I am D100 on your tail and ready to fire. However, you employ the 190s best move of stick steering and fish flopping causing a warp that causes me to collide with you. I go down and you fly away untouched or with tail wheel damage. Care to tell me how it was my fault and how could I have avoided you warping into me?
This could be entertaining to see how this simple scenario gets twisted around :lol
Other side of the coin:
white "XYZ has collided with you" and goes down. You fly away undamaged.....
Discuss.
wrongway
-
I come to this discussion late and admit ignorance to the content of the entire thread, but there are a couple of things that I wish to add in my good friend Des' defence.
.etc.
this just confuses the issue because bullet damage works differently from collision damage.
with bullets, the damage to the other guy from your bullets depends on what happens on your FE, then his FE is notified of his damage.
with collisions, damage to the other guy is purely based on what happens on his FE.
-
...
Yes, the only way that I can receive damage from an aircraft past me and facing away with out rear guns HAS TO BE LAG.
You are correct about that but it is irrelevant to the collision model and lag has nothing to do with where you aim to shoot the aircraft you see on your computer. What you mentioned correctly is simply that once you hit somebody on your computer, that hit information has to travel to their computer and the lag can be very obvious then. The related issue for lag is that the bandit behind you is closer to you on his computer than he appears to be on yours. This is the only time you have to consider lag. When you are judging how much trouble you are in from the bandit who almost has guns on you, he's in a better position on his computer then he seems to be on yours.
-
The only way lag can be to blame in a collision is if the enemy warps/skips into you, aka, The Joeblack Maneuver.
-
Aren't warps from packet loss?
-
do impart your knowledge on how to kill the other guy without intersecting the other party...
Basic Aerial Combat Maneuvers.
There's a clinic for it.
To start with: knowing your opponent is going to do everything and anything within their control to put their guns on you and squeeze the trigger, and in direct corresponding reaction to your movements, hands you control of the fight and gives you the advantage of deciding where and what the fight is going to do.
-
If you close to 100 in an online aircraft game your too close.
In a close scissors fight, 100 is pretty common. I just looked at film of a fight between myself and a 109, and our ranges varied from 6 (!) to 110 for most of the engagement, hovering mostly around 50-60. That's not uncommon.
-
If you close to 100 in an online aircraft game your too close.
In a close scissors fight, 100 is pretty common. I just looked at film of a fight between myself and a 109, and our ranges varied from 6 (!) to 110 for most of the engagement, hovering mostly around 50-60. That's not uncommon.
I think Mols and I were about 3ft apart in this part of the fight.
(http://i473.photobucket.com/albums/rr97/bikermedic8/themerge.jpg)
ack-ack
-
Other side of the coin:
white "XYZ has collided with you" and goes down. You fly away undamaged.....
Discuss.
wrongway
Why am I always XYZ and never the "ewe" that flies away undamaged"?
-
Do you have a reasoning behind that? It honestly just looks like you want to blame the other pilot, regardless of the situation.
It especially looks that way because in these instances I could have easily not been in a collision at all, where you were. How could it be my fault if I didn't collide?
The one thing I do see though is that you don't want to necessarily blame the guy who gets hit, but blame the guy who rammed into the other guy. Do you base this on who you think got in the way? In other words, it's not your fault you hit the other guy, because he got in your way?
In all of those cases where you stated it was my fault, your propeller hit me (essentially, you rammed me). But you consider yourself faultless?
Do you take that a step further, and say that the guy who flies into you isn't at fault, because you may have gotten in his way?
What criteria do you use to place blame? Is it a simple "formula" that could be coded? Or does it require a judge/jury to weigh out each scenario?
Yeah I stated my reasoning in the post above and I stated that in my response to you, the person at higher rate of speed. So yes it could easily be coded. But I haven't had time to go ram people in the lake yet to make sure of my theory. Think of it like a working hypothesis, just need to build the data.
-
I can see how a lot of folks think it is out of their control, since they have no control over a fight, because they have not spent the time to learn exactly what is going on in a fight. The more you engage in close combat, aka, in the dueling arena with other like-minded individuals, you can easily predict how the fight is going to develop and where these toon planes are going to intersect, and thus consequently, avoid it. If you are too lazy/indifferent to go the extra mile to become better, then you will simply be a victim of the collision scenarios that randomly develop on their own, since you are doing nothing to prevent them from happening.
my 2 cents.
sure in a 1v1, but thats not realistic in the MA for me
-
sure in a 1v1, but thats not realistic in the MA for me
Actually I would have thought the exact opposite. Since a1v1 is generally considered to be "equal status" at the beginning of the fight.
-
Yeah I stated my reasoning in the post above and I stated that in my response to you, the person at higher rate of speed. So yes it could easily be coded. But I haven't had time to go ram people in the lake yet to make sure of my theory. Think of it like a working hypothesis, just need to build the data.
So, I guess I should give you some test time before explaining why speed alone isn't a valid criteria?
There are a couple of obvious reasons that come to mind immediately, that I think would render much effort towards data-gathering a waste of time. Then again, gathering your own data would probably be the easiest way for you to understand why it wouldn't be a "fair" criteria to use in an effort to assign "fault".
-
The notion of fault is irrelevant to the collision model. The collision model simply detects if there is a collision on the player's computer. Assigning fault to the player who didn't have a collision and punishing that player with collision damage is ludicrous. If there is a collision on both computers then both players are affected. It's the best system for dealing with internet lag but it's not a system designed to assuage player egos.
-
The notion of fault is irrelevant to the collision model. The collision model simply detects if there is a collision on the player's computer. Assigning fault to the player who didn't have a collision and punishing that player with collision damage is ludicrous. If there is a collision on both computers then both players are affected. It's the best system for dealing with internet lag but it's not a system designed to assuage player egos.
So if I'm flying a plane and I collide with another plane it's my fault?
But if another plane collides withe me, but I can't see that, it's their fault?
And if we bother see ourselves hitting each other it's both our fault?
Brilliant!!! Here's a cookie :D
p.s. thank gawd someone gets it.
-
sure in a 1v1, but thats not realistic in the MA for me
Well, in a multiplane engagement, the probability of getting in a collision naturally increases just as the chance of getting shot down increases. You are ultimately in control of where your plane goes, but even if you enable perfect ACM against 3-4 bogeys, you will still die a high percentage of the time because ultimately it is out of your control. There is an element of luck. Same goes with collisions in a multiplane environment. That's not the game's fault, imo.
<edit> It's equivalent to saying that ACM's are bogus because I employed them perfectly against 3 cons and still died.
-
hey chilli thanks for the vote of confidence :salute... i reckon its those people who has frequent bad connection or latency issues... would be on the other end of the spectrum where i am.. i'm playing from singapore.. which is a good distance away from any AH server...i do not believe the current model is the best... or that it doesn't need to change....most people with good connections or latency will beg to differ guaranteed! as skuzzy say.. as long you interect with another aircraft collisions are bound to happen... but my point i am making here is, to solely blame 1 party for the collision due to the lag or latency is simply not perfect to me( since i am 99% on this current side of the specturm). Also... many others who collided and got away with it damage free isn't always the innocent person trying to avoid the collision... search your feelings.... you know them to be true... :D
-
So if I'm flying a plane and I collide with another plane it's my fault?
But if another plane collides withe me, but I can't see that, it's their fault?
And if we bother see ourselves hitting each other it's both our fault?
Brilliant!!! Here's a cookie :D
p.s. thank gawd someone gets it.
No. Fault is irrelevant. If somebody flies into you on your computer but they don't hit you on their computer then it's not your fault or their fault. It's a true no-fault collision. You might fault yourself for failing to get out of the way but that's really a different issue.
-
:rofl As I said. It would be entertaining. Keep going, I have my boots on :rofl
I always have my boots on. :D
-
In a close scissors fight, 100 is pretty common. I just looked at film of a fight between myself and a 109, and our ranges varied from 6 (!) to 110 for most of the engagement, hovering mostly around 50-60. That's not uncommon.
He dove on him and closed to 100 off his 6... no scissors. That is in his description I think.
-
hey chilli thanks for the vote of confidence :salute... i reckon its those people who has frequent bad connection or latency issues... would be on the other end of the spectrum where i am.. i'm playing from singapore.. which is a good distance away from any AH server...i do not believe the current model is the best... or that it doesn't need to change....most people with good connections or latency will beg to differ guaranteed! as skuzzy say.. as long you interect with another aircraft collisions are bound to happen... but my point i am making here is, to solely blame 1 party for the collision due to the lag or latency is simply not perfect to me( since i am 99% on this current side of the specturm). Also... many others who collided and got away with it damage free isn't always the innocent person trying to avoid the collision... search your feelings.... you know them to be true... :D
You apparently still don't understand how collisions work. When Skuzzy said "intersect" he used it as an alternative to "collide". You wrote above that as long as you collide with another aircraft your are bound to collide. I think we all agree with that. "Intersect" is not the same as "interact" which seems, by your usage, to be your understanding of the word.
Your location in the world and your lag do not put you at a disadvantage in collisions. You believe differently but you are mistaken.
-
hey chilli thanks for the vote of confidence :salute... i reckon its those people who has frequent bad connection or latency issues... would be on the other end of the spectrum where i am.. i'm playing from singapore.. which is a good distance away from any AH server...i do not believe the current model is the best... or that it doesn't need to change....most people with good connections or latency will beg to differ guaranteed! as skuzzy say.. as long you interect with another aircraft collisions are bound to happen... but my point i am making here is, to solely blame 1 party for the collision due to the lag or latency is simply not perfect to me( since i am 99% on this current side of the specturm). Also... many others who collided and got away with it damage free isn't always the innocent person trying to avoid the collision... search your feelings.... you know them to be true... :D
:bhead
Connection speed, latency, lag, has no effect on the model at all. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. It is 100% irrelevant to the discussion. Why? Because it is the same for both you and your opponent. The latency is the total between you and him. If he is in Dallas, TX with a .030 ping and you are in Singapore with a .350 ping, the latency for both of you in your fight is .380.
-
...i do not believe the current model is the best...
thats because you still dont understand how it works.
-
He dove on him and closed to 100 off his 6... no scissors. That is in his description I think.
He just mentioned that he was 100 off his 6 but didn't say if he dove in or not. I agree, 100 is waaaay too close to wait to fire if you're right on someone's six at a high rate of speed. Even if you kill the guy, you're probably gonna collide with the flaming hulk before being able to get out of the way.
-
He just mentioned that he was 100 off his 6 but didn't say if he dove in or not. I agree, 100 is waaaay too close to wait to fire if you're right on someone's six at a high rate of speed. Even if you kill the guy, you're probably gonna collide with the flaming hulk before being able to get out of the way.
Yeah exactly.
I have been in plenty of rolling scissors at very close distances, similar to the quantities you described earlier. Imo, the better you understand what is going on in the fight, the closer you can safely get and the thinner of angles you can work without colliding. Basically, the safety line goes from a thick dull hazy gray line for an average player, to a fine black sharp line as you improve your skills.
-
:bhead
Connection speed, latency, lag, has no effect on the model at all. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. It is 100% irrelevant to the discussion. Why? Because it is the same for both you and your opponent. The latency is the total between you and him. If he is in Dallas, TX with a .030 ping and you are in Singapore with a .350 ping, the latency for both of you in your fight is .380.
Karnak,
I don't know enough to dispute what you say is not always true. In fact, it seems to be reasonable. Possibly, as someone else pointed to, it is more of an issue of packet loss :headscratch: I don't know.
My understanding, (forgive me for clouding any discussion on fault - not where I am concerned) the game is played at home on my computer as well as the same for every other player. I receive an update on my computer which tells me where that player is (in relation to our paths) from information updated from his computer to the server.
I see >>>> server <<<< another online player updates
^^^
This seems reasonable to me, is it correct??
Please explain for my understanding warps, if you will. This being the extreme example of what I am trying to describe or grasp. The poor Joe, bouncing all over the sky, every couple of seconds, what is his computer telling the servers different on his end that gets garbled on my end? (Again, I know this is extreme, but I am aware that packet loss is something that I will never defeat with my type of connection, but work darn hard to get it minimized.)
Is it possible, that some of us are just less fortunate with our connections? That is all (please forgive the interruption).
-
Discuss.
Please no...
-
Warps are not the same as latency. Warps occur due to dropped packets and are a separate issue. You could have a guy in Dallas, TX fighting a guy in Grapevine, TX and one of them dropping packets and warping while their latency was only .060. That is less likely as there are fewer hops the data has to make and hence fewer opportunities for packet loss. That being the case, people with high latency are more likely to be the people who are warping, but don't mistake correlation for causation.
-
Chilli go to the Tech Support forum and read Internet Connection Hints/Tips by Skuzzy. That should answer most of your questions.
-
Yes, Skuzzy and HTC have been very helpful with my connection and I actually believe this part of the hints probably relates to me personally.
When schools start around the country, or when schools are out for holidays, or when schools are let out for any breaks, packet loss will be higher than other periods of time. During severe weather, packet loss will be geographic in sync with wherever the severe weather is occurring.
Thanks, and no, I am in no way placing any blame on HTC for how the internet works. I am very fortunate that this is a close knit organization and they cared enough to look over my ping plots and ever since then I have had improved performance with the exception of times of high traffic.
-
Please explain for my understanding warps, if you will. This being the extreme example of what I am trying to describe or grasp. The poor Joe, bouncing all over the sky, every couple of seconds, what is his computer telling the servers different on his end that gets garbled on my end? (Again, I know this is extreme, but I am aware that packet loss is something that I will never defeat with my type of connection, but work darn hard to get it minimized.)
Lets say the other computer tells you where he is once every second (the send rate is irreverent for this discussion). Your computer now simply draws him at that position each time it receives the packet. What you would see on your computer is his plane jump from 1 position to another every second.
Obviously you do not wish to see this so instead of just position he also sends his current speed and direction.
Now instead of seeing him in 1 position every second your computer continues to move him at the speed and direction he received.
Now say he starts a turn immediately after sending you a packet. Your computer would be drawing him in a straight line, but when the next packet came in he would not be where your computer expected him. So his new position would have to be drawn.
Now as long as everything is consistent, you will receive a packet every second no mater how long it takes for it to get to you , Lets say a 5 second lag, you will get the 1st packet 5 seconds later, but after that you will receive a packet every second and things will be just as smooth as if there was a 0 second lag.
Now what happens if some times the lag is 1 second and some times 5 seconds. Or if you receive 1 packet and then 4 packets are lost , and then you receive a packet again. Your computer will continue to display him using the last packet received information. When the new one comes in many seconds later it must correct for the error where it is drawing him.
This is what causes a warp. Dropped packets or inconstancy latency/lag. Ah is extremely tolerant of both latency changes and dropped packets. But when those changes are in the many seconds range, things start to warp.
What I have described is a very simple version of what AH really does, the total complexity and precision needed to make planes look smooth is far outside the scope of this discussion.
HiTech
-
Lets say the other computer tells you where he is once every second (the send rate is irreverent for this discussion). Your computer now simply draws him at that position each time it receives the packet. What you would see on your computer is his plane jump from 1 position to another every second.
Obviously you do not wish to see this so instead of just position he also sends his current speed and direction.
Now instead of seeing him in 1 position every second your computer continues to move him at the speed and direction he received.
Now say he starts a turn immediately after sending you a packet. Your computer would be drawing him in a straight line, but when the next packet came in he would not be where your computer expected him. So his new position would have to be drawn.
Now as long as everything is consistent, you will receive a packet every second no mater how long it takes for it to get to you , Lets say a 5 second lag, you will get the 1st packet 5 seconds later, but after that you will receive a packet every second and things will be just as smooth as if there was a 0 second lag.
Now what happens if some times the lag is 1 second and some times 5 seconds. Or if you receive 1 packet and then 4 packets are lost , and then you receive a packet again. Your computer will continue to display him using the last packet received information. When the new one comes in many seconds later it must correct for the error where it is drawing him.
This is what causes a warp. Dropped packets or inconstancy latency/lag. Ah is extremely tolerant of both latency changes and dropped packets. But when those changes are in the many seconds range, things start to warp.
What I have described is a very simple version of what AH really does, the total complexity and precision needed to make planes look smooth is far outside the scope of this discussion.
HiTech
That was very well put into laymans terms.
-
That was very well put into laymans terms.
:aok
Especially, since I hadn't even considered that information about speed so forth and so on, being sent with each packet. That was an AHAH!!! moment :bolt: and answered many more questions that I even thought to ask. It all is still magical to me, even when you show me some of the smoke an mirrors.
Thanks for the input.
-
:O :O :O Wow..! I,m dumb and Naked! :bhead :bhead :bhead
-
So, I guess I should give you some test time before explaining why speed alone isn't a valid criteria?
There are a couple of obvious reasons that come to mind immediately, that I think would render much effort towards data-gathering a waste of time. Then again, gathering your own data would probably be the easiest way for you to understand why it wouldn't be a "fair" criteria to use in an effort to assign "fault".
I'm all ears, I hate wasting time.
-
That was very well put into laymans terms.
Pyro's been posting under HiTech's name again.
ack-ack
-
Well, in a multiplane engagement, the probability of getting in a collision naturally increases just as the chance of getting shot down increases. You are ultimately in control of where your plane goes, but even if you enable perfect ACM against 3-4 bogeys, you will still die a high percentage of the time because ultimately it is out of your control. There is an element of luck. Same goes with collisions in a multiplane environment. That's not the game's fault, imo.
<edit> It's equivalent to saying that ACM's are bogus because I employed them perfectly against 3 cons and still died.
I'm not blaming the game, thats been my entire problem throughout the thread I'm blaming the other players or even me. I want to assign blame to who caused the collision. I don't like being in a 3-4 con engagement getting rammed by 1 of them and they fly away with a missing elevator and landing a kill.
-
Pyro's been posting under HiTech's name again.
ack-ack
When you have a kid everything changes. :D
I'm not blaming the game, thats been my entire problem throughout the thread I'm blaming the other players or even me. I want to assign blame to who caused the collision. I don't like being in a 3-4 con engagement getting rammed by 1 of them and they fly away with a missing elevator and landing a kill.
It's clear that you want to assign blame to people who didn't collide.
-
:O :O :O Wow..! I,m numb and Naked! :bhead :bhead :bhead
fixt :aok
-
I'm not blaming the game, thats been my entire problem throughout the thread I'm blaming the other players or even me. I want to assign blame to who caused the collision. I don't like being in a 3-4 con engagement getting rammed by 1 of them and they fly away with a missing elevator and landing a kill.
Remember when you point a finger in blame, you have three fingers pointing back right at you.
ack-ack
-
Remember when you point a finger in blame, you have three fingers pointing back right at you.
ack-ack
How do you fly with one finger and a thumb??
Had to sorry :D
-
Pyro's been posting under HiTech's name again.
ack-ack
Even a broken clock is correct some times.
And if you want some details of one way to do it.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/6042477
HiTech
-
How do you fly with one finger and a thumb??
Had to sorry :D
I use Kinect, though my arms get tired quickly
ack-ack
-
Even a broken clock is correct some times.
And if you want some details of one way to do it.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/6042477
HiTech
Well that explains it. Thanks for the link. :D
-
I'm all ears, I hate wasting time.
Ok, I honestly didn't expect that response...
If you model collision "fault" based on speed alone, it becomes an unbalancing factor and will have effect far beyond the fights where collisions occur.
If you decide that collisions are the "fault of the fast guy", you'll destroy any chances of "fair" close fighting between a fast plane type and a plane that's inherently slower than that. An extreme example would be between a P51 or 262 and a Spit1. If the P51 pilot knows his stuff, he'll seldom (if ever) be as slow as his target, so he'd have a much better chance at being found "at fault" simply because of the plane he chose to fly. And if the pilot of the slower plane type knows that he'll be held faultless for any collision that occurs (simply because he's slower) why would he avoid colliding? What would keep him from using collisions to his advantage? This would put an unfair responsibility to avoid colliding on the faster pilot, while removing that responsibility for the slower one.
Conversely, if collisions were always the "fault of the slow guy" imagine how reckless that high P51 could be when he dives in on your slower plane... He'd have no fear of colliding, because it would always be the slower guys fault, right?
Amongst identical plane fights, why should the guy who's a few mph faster than the other be at fault? Why should the guy who's a few mph slower be to blame? Energy conservation is a deciding factor in fights, but in the case of collisions it would reward the guy with less energy.
A collision model based on speed would shift fights further away from reality.
You cannot place blame on a pilot because they have a different speed than someone else. You also cannot place blame based on angle of intersect, or even based on who's airplane entered someone else, or one what part of a plane entered what part of the others.
-
another case study scenario...
i get chased by someone... i am flying 800 infront of him... and i decide to go vertical to lure him up for friendlies to finish him off...he follows me up... i forget at the moment that he has a more superior climb rate than my aircraft...i maintain a straight and steady steady climb, i have maybe 100 more knots before i stall...and he closes in behind me rapidly 400, 200, ... i dun ever bother to struggle to roll or turn...i close my eyes in disappointment in my stupid tactic and the next thing i know i hear a strange bang( not the expected gunfire sound) when i open my eyes... i saw that i got a collision msg... and i miss a wing, and engine oil... he collided into me but i got the msg.. and he flies home with a free kill( no doubt he deserves the kill for getting me into this sorry predictcament, :salute not sure if he was awarded perkies or not although i think he did... the system basically gave him that kill)... i found out later that he had run out of bullets, and decided to ram me...he was def not trying to avoid me thats for sure.
these are the descrepancies that happened many times to me....
so when you try to relate that to what you guys are saying about that my computer sees, it is definately not what actually happened.. and then it becomes my fault for not avoiding that collision? how ludicrious is that????
-
another case study scenario...
i get chased by someone... i am flying 800 infront of him... and i decide to go vertical to lure him up for friendlies to finish him off...he follows me up... i forget at the moment that he has a more superior climb rate than my aircraft...i maintain a straight and steady steady climb, i have maybe 100 more knots before i stall...and he closes in behind me rapidly 400, 200, ... i dun ever bother to struggle to roll or turn...i close my eyes in disappointment in my stupid tactic and the next thing i know when i open my eyes... i get a collision msg... and i miss a wing, and engine oil... he collided into me but i got the msg... i found out later that he had run out of bullets, and decided to ram me...
these are the descrepancies that happened many times to me....
Did he say he tried to ram you? How do you know?
Regardless he missed on his end, but your aircraft on your end did not. You explained it yourself perfectly, you said you messed up.
So I do not understand where the problem lies.
-
he collided into me but i got the msg... i found out later that he had run out of bullets, and decided to ram me...
He didn't collide with you. You collided with him. On his front end, he may have attempted to ram you, but he missed. Had he not missed, he would have received a collision message on his end.
This has been spelled out to you in literally dozens of ways in this thread, not least of all by the creators of the game itself. I'm unsure why you persist in arguing an obviously flawed point.
-
another case study scenario...
i get chased by someone... i am flying 800 infront of him... and i decide to go vertical to lure him up for friendlies to finish him off...he follows me up... i forget at the moment that he has a more superior climb rate than my aircraft...i maintain a straight and steady steady climb, i have maybe 100 more knots before i stall...and he closes in behind me rapidly 400, 200, ... i dun ever bother to struggle to roll or turn...i close my eyes in disappointment in my stupid tactic and the next thing i know i hear a strange bang( not the expected gunfire sound) when i open my eyes... i saw that i got a collision msg... and i miss a wing, and engine oil... he collided into me but i got the msg.. and he flies home with a free kill( no doubt he deserves the kill for getting me into this sorry predictcament, :salute not sure if he was awarded perkies or not although i think he did... the system basically gave him that kill)... i found out later that he had run out of bullets, and decided to ram me...he was def not trying to avoid me thats for sure.
these are the descrepancies that happened many times to me....
so when you try to relate that to what you guys are saying about that my computer sees, it is definately not what actually happened.. and then it becomes my fault for not avoiding that collision? how ludicrious is that????
now take all the technology away and what remains is the theory behind the model.
-
so when you try to relate that to what you guys are saying about that my computer sees, it is definately not what actually happened.. and then it becomes my fault for not avoiding that collision? how ludicrious is that????
You didn't avoid the collision on your front end. On your front end, your plane and his plane touched. On his front end, they did not. Hence, you took damage and he did not. He may have attempted to ram you, but he actually failed to do so on his computer since he didn't take any damage and received no message.
It's not ludicrous. It's your fault entirely.
-
so when you try to relate that to what you guys are saying about that my computer sees, it is definately not what actually happened..
This speaks to your failure to understand the previous 27 pages of explanation. What your computer sees is the definition of what actually happened. In the universe that you are the center of, you had a collision. In the universe that the bandit is the center of, there was no collision. What actually happened is that you collided with the bandit and took damage. What actually happened is that you didn't collide with the bandit and there was no damage. Both statements are true.
-
I'm going to need another tub of popcorn.
-
Also, in addition to the "You have collided", he shot you.
:neener:
wrongway
-
another case study scenario...
i get chased by someone... i am flying 800 infront of him... and i decide to go vertical to lure him up for friendlies to finish him off...he follows me up... i forget at the moment that he has a more superior climb rate than my aircraft...i maintain a straight and steady steady climb, i have maybe 100 more knots before i stall...and he closes in behind me rapidly 400, 200, ... i dun ever bother to struggle to roll or turn...i close my eyes in disappointment in my stupid tactic and the next thing i know i hear a strange bang( not the expected gunfire sound) when i open my eyes... i saw that i got a collision msg... and i miss a wing, and engine oil... he collided into me but i got the msg.. and he flies home with a free kill( no doubt he deserves the kill for getting me into this sorry predictcament, :salute not sure if he was awarded perkies or not although i think he did... the system basically gave him that kill)... i found out later that he had run out of bullets, and decided to ram me...he was def not trying to avoid me thats for sure.
these are the descrepancies that happened many times to me....
so when you try to relate that to what you guys are saying about that my computer sees, it is definately not what actually happened.. and then it becomes my fault for not avoiding that collision? how ludicrious is that????
now take all the technology away and what remains is the theory behind the model.
And the bolded section is where it becomes YOUR fault. NEVER give up! A hard rudder and a flip of the throttle on and off could have flipped you over for a shot, or maybe a close pass for you to dive back down to regain speed.
You have to remember that when you are flying this game it is ALMOST like flying against the computer in one of those other games that don't have an on-line version. Would you blame the computer for colliding into you? That is how you have to look at it. whats happening on your computer could be 50 feet off of what is happening on the other guys computer, that is why you have to treat it as just you against the computer.
In the scenario you posted what the other guy had on his computer was something like this....
I'm following this guys about 800 back. He goes vertical hoping to rope me or have his friends pick me in the climb. What he forgot is my plane zooms better/climbs better/has more "E" than his and I closing fast! Just as I get into a good guns range he stalls and falls off UNDER my nose ! Grrrrr. I can't take the chance in ramming him to get my shot, so I pull a bit harder to turn my climb into a loop and hope to get him on the way down. As I roll over I see he collides with me and he is heading to the ground. I go looking for another target.
This is why he doesn't get a collision message, because he missed you by 50 feet by going into a loop instead of going for the shot.
-
another case study scenario...
i get chased by someone... i am flying 800 infront of him... and i decide to go vertical to lure him up for friendlies to finish him off...he follows me up... i forget at the moment that he has a more superior climb rate than my aircraft...i maintain a straight and steady steady climb, i have maybe 100 more knots before i stall...and he closes in behind me rapidly 400, 200, ... i dun ever bother to struggle to roll or turn...i close my eyes in disappointment in my stupid tactic and the next thing i know i hear a strange bang( not the expected gunfire sound) when i open my eyes... i saw that i got a collision msg... and i miss a wing, and engine oil... he collided into me but i got the msg.
The only possible way you could believe this is if you do not, as you clearly don't, understand how it works. You are mentally locked into a real world, at fault, auto collision, thought process. Just because the collision happened from behind does not mean he collided with you. He did not, in fact, collide with you. The collision happened on your computer, not his. That makes the collision your responsibility, not his.
-
Even a broken clock is correct some times.
And if you want some details of one way to do it.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/6042477
HiTech
Pure GOLD broken clock reference! :aok From that read alone, it is crystal clear that we oversimplify many things happening in the online gaming world :joystick: that work to give the illusion of real time combat interaction over vast distances via internet.
As for discussion on collision damage and assigning blame, it doesn't appear that there could be a perfectly right alternative. Turn all collisions on or all collision off, either way someone would feel abused or tend to abuse settings.
I could be wrong, but it seems that some of what is inflammatory is the amount of damage awarded to the participants. For example on my computer someone appears on my end to clip my wing with his nose. I lose a wing, and he loses a tail gear.
After listening to the discusions, I understand the frustration in the above instance on the part of the wing loss versus a bumpy landing. What I have to agree, is the damage done on your plane comes from what has happened on your front end, where as the tail section collided on the front end of the other computer in the above example. Basically, if your computer didn't see him make contact on your front end you would receive no damage, while his computer saw a collision on his front end so damage would occur.
^^^
I think I got it :)
-
The only possible way you could believe this is if you do not, as you clearly don't, understand how it works. You are mentally locked into a real world, at fault, auto collision, thought process. Just because the collision happened from behind does not mean he collided with you. He did not, in fact, collide with you. The collision happened on your computer, not his. That makes the collision your responsibility, not his.
this is what i mean... take all the technology involved in this model aside for a min, lag, latency, what the computer sees etc,......think abt it for a sec theoratically... i am infront of someone and trying to fly away from some one who wants to kill me... or ..i'm sitting on runway waiting for a squaddie to up so we can fly together? NOW... lets put the technology involved in this... and then suddenly everything gets screwed up and now i am at fault for causing a collision.. does it make sense to anyone?
now if i have to assign blame to a variable... i can't put the fault on the internet because thats a uncontrollable variable.... so that leaves the prefect aces high collision model that is modeled on how the internet works...and myself for trying to fly with this kind of latency...
-
:bhead
-
this is what i mean... take all the technology involved in this model aside for a min, lag, latency, what the computer sees etc,......think abt it for a sec theoratically... i am infront of someone and trying to fly away from some one who wants to kill me... or ..i'm sitting on runway waiting for a squaddie to up so we can fly together? NOW... lets put the technology involved in this... and then suddenly everything gets screwed up and now i am at fault for causing a collision.. does it make sense to anyone?
now if i have to assign blame to a variable... i can't put the fault on the internet because thats a uncontrollable variable.... so that leaves the prefect aces high collision model that is modeled on how the internet works...and myself for trying to fly with this kind of latency...
Then go play single player games. You want something that does not and will not exist for the foreseeable future. Maybe, just maybe, quantum computing will offer a solution to the limits of light speed, but have fun waiting for that.
Also, you need to lose the "you were at fault" idea and understand the "only you had any chance to avoid it, though due to additional circumstances in a few rare cases you could not avoid it and that is just how it goes" idea.
-
another case study scenario...
i get chased by someone... i am flying 800 infront of him... and i decide to go vertical to lure him up for friendlies to finish him off...he follows me up... i forget at the moment that he has a more superior climb rate than my aircraft[...i maintain a straight and steady steady climb, i have maybe 100 more knots before i stall...and he closes in behind me rapidly 400, 200, ... i dun ever bother to struggle to roll or turn...i close my eyes in disappointment in my stupid tactic and the next thing i know i hear a strange bang( not the expected gunfire sound) when i open my eyes... i saw that i got a collision msg... and i miss a wing, and engine oil... he collided into me but i got the msg.. and he flies home with a free kill( no doubt he deserves the kill for getting me into this sorry predictcament, :salute not sure if he was awarded perkies or not although i think he did... the system basically gave him that kill)... i found out later that he had run out of bullets, and decided to ram me...he was def not trying to avoid me thats for sure.
these are the descrepancies that happened many times to me....
so when you try to relate that to what you guys are saying about that my computer sees, it is definately not what actually happened.. and then it becomes my fault for not avoiding that collision? how ludicrious is that????
now take all the technology away and what remains is the theory behind the model.
That is not a descrepancy.
What you are saying here is the other player made the choice to avoid the collision and you did not. The system did exactly what is is supposed to do, because it is the fairest alternative available.
-
Well Skuzzy likes pain :)
You cant win an argument with someone who is unwilling to look at the facts.
On your PC end: If you whack someone...you take damage
On your PC end: If they whack you...They take damage
On EACH PC end if you both whack each other...you both take damage.
And the reason this happens...is because of this crazy thing called latency...or lag if you will. Which means, WHAT YOU SEE IS NOT WHAT THEY SEE.
Thats about as simple as it gets, but some people will still refuse to believe it.
-
Well Skuzzy likes pain :)<snip>
Not at all. I realize there are people who will never get it. I would rather offer up facts for new people, than allowing opinion, speculation, and/or innuendo to guide them. If they are afforded the oppertunity to read facts versus fiction, then they can make an informed decision.
-
and then suddenly everything gets screwed up and now i am at fault for causing a collision.. does it make sense to anyone?
Why must you need to assign fault ? ... your fault / his fault ... doesn't matter to the collision code ... you were INVOLVED in a collision ... period.
-
Well Skuzzy likes pain :)
You cant win an argument with someone who is unwilling to look at the facts.
On your PC end: If you whack someone...you take damage
On your PC end: If they whack you...They take damage
On EACH PC end if you both whack each other...you both take damage.
And the reason this happens...is because of this crazy thing called latency...or lag if you will. Which means, WHAT YOU SEE IS NOT WHAT THEY SEE.
Thats about as simple as it gets, but some people will still refuse to believe it.
In bold ... not always true.
-
In the future if you have a collision just blame it on me no matter who it is.
Hope this makes you feel better. :)
They can even change the system to say Shuffler has collided with you. :D
They can even say you have been shuffled. :rofl
-
In bold ... not always true.
Typo, I believe.
Wonder whose fault it was?
wrongway